1887
Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-7245
  • E-ISSN: 2211-7253
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.16017.jon
2017-12-30
2019-12-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Androutsopoulos, J.
    (2006) Multilingualism, diaspora, and the Internet: Codes and identities on German-based diaspora websites. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 429–450. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2006.00291.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00291.x [Google Scholar]
  2. (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: 10.1515/9783110214468.667
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214468.667 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2014a) Languaging when contexts collapse: Audience design in social networking. Discourse, Context and Media, 4–5, 62–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2014b) Moments of sharing: Entextualization and linguistic repertoires in social networking. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 4–18. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.013 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2015) Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(2), 185–205. doi: 10.1177/1367006913489198
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006913489198 [Google Scholar]
  6. Appadurai, A.
    (1996) Modernity at large. Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. (2014) Taalcultuur: Talen in beweging. Taal & Tongval, 65(2), 125–147. doi: 10.5117/TET2013.2.CORN
    https://doi.org/10.5117/TET2013.2.CORN [Google Scholar]
  9. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Danet, B. & Herring, S. C.
    (2007) The multilingual Internet: Language, culture, and communication online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304794.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dann, S. Twitter content classification
    . First Monday, [S.l.], nov. 2010 ISSN13960466. Available at: firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2745/2681 doi: 10.5210/fm.v15i12.2745
    https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i12.2745 [Google Scholar]
  13. Driessen, G.
    (2006) Ontwikkelingen in het gebruik van streektalen en dialecten in de periode 1995–2003. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 75, 103–113. doi: 10.1075/ttwia.75.10dri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ttwia.75.10dri [Google Scholar]
  14. (2012) Ontwikkelingen in het gebruik van Fries, streektalen en dialecten in de periode 1995–2011. Nijmegen: ITS.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Flycatcher
    Flycatcher (2016) Resultaten en nadere analyses dialectenquete De Limburger/Limburgs Dagblad. Also Urlings, Guus (2016) Slijtage in het taalbolwerk. De Limburger/Limburgs Dagblad (23May 2016)
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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, 196/197, 31–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gorter, D. , & Jonkman, R. J.
    (1995) Taal yn Fryslân: Op ’e nij besjoen. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]
  19. 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]
  20. Humphreys, L. , Gill, P. , Krishnamurthy, B. , & Newbury, E.
    (2013) Historicizing new media: A content analysis of Twitter. Journal of Communication, 63, 413–431. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12030
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12030 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. 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, 26, 27–54. doi: 10.2436/20.2504.01.107
    https://doi.org/10.2436/20.2504.01.107 [Google Scholar]
  24. Leerssen, J. T.
    (1996) Advies inzake de erkenning van het Limburgs als streektaal. Sittard: Werkgroep Erkenning Limburgs als Streektaal. Retrieved from taal.phileon.nl/lim_situatie.php
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 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, 14, 1080–1107. doi: 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2009.01482.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01482.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Litt, E. , & Hargittai, E.
    (2016) The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media + Society, January-March 2016, 1–12. doi: 10.1177/2056305116633482
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116633482 [Google Scholar]
  27. 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: 10.1177/1461444810365313
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. Nguyen, D. , Trieschnigg, D. , & Cornips, L.
    (2015) Audience and the use of minority languages on Twitter. InProceedings of the Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (pp.666–669). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI).
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Oostendorp, M. van
    (2006) Geen Friese toestanden! Het werk van streektaalfunctionarissen. Onze Taal, 251–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Page, R. , Barton, D. , Unger, J. W. , & Zappavigna, M.
    (2014) Researching the language of social media: A student guide. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Provinsje Fryslân
    Provinsje Fryslân (2015) De Fryske taalatlas 2015. Fryske taal yn byld. Leeuwarden: Provinsje Fryslân.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. 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: 10.1057/9781137029317.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317.0004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Stæhr, A.
    (2015) Reflexivity in Facebook interaction: Enregisterment across written and spoken language practices. Discourse, Context & Media, 8, 30–45. doi: 10.1016/j.dcm.2015.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2015.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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]
  37. Tagg, C.
    (2015) Exploring digital communication: Language in action. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Trieschnigg, D.
    (2015) Finding and analyzing tweets from Limburg and Friesland. University of Twente. [Powerpoint slides]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. 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]
  41. (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]
  42. 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: 10.1057/9781137029317.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317.0012 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.16017.jon
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.16017.jon
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Frisian , language choice , Limburgish , minority languages , regional languages , social media and Twitter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error