1. Regional Languages and Dialects in Decline

1. Regional languages and dialects in decline

The Netherlands has approximately 18 million inhabitants, who live in twelve provinces. The official language of the Netherlands is Standard Dutch. In addition, there are three regional languages, which are recognized by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, namely Frisian, Limburgish, and Low Saxon, which are spoken in parts of the provinces of Friesland (in the North); Limburg (the South); and Groningen, Drenthe, Overijssel and Gelderland (the East), respectively, and furthermore, there are numerous local dialects Driessen (2005) ^[1]. According to many, the provinces of North Holland, South Holland and Utrecht (called The Randstad, i.e., the metropolitan area in the West) constitute the political, economic and cultural center of the Netherlands.

Although Standard Dutch once originated from local dialects, that is to say, the dialects were there earlier, they have fallen into sharply declining use over the past decades. In a large-scale study (Driessen & Withagen, 1999)^[2], which analyzed national data collected in 1994 from 7,730 Dutch primary school students and their parents, it was found that only 13% of the children still spoke a regional language or dialect, while 26% of their parents did so. Large differences in language choice existed between provinces, however. Especially in the provinces of Friesland and Limburg, many people still speak their regional language or dialect, although their numbers are dropping there as well (Versloot, 2000)^[3].

According to Versloot, professor of Frisian languages, instead of regional languages, a “Randstad-oriented language” has emerged in the Netherlands (Van der Vlist, 2025)^[4]. It is characterized by a typical r, many swallowed letters at the end of the word, and a rather staccato pronunciation. This language is mostly spoken in the Randstad, but increasingly in the rest of the country as well. University students and staff from provincial origins, especially, leave their dialects behind and speak Standard Dutch once they study or work in the Randstad. Versloot argues that this has to do with an invisible social pressure. In the urban and academic context, there is social stratification and a certain status attached to the use of Standard Dutch. Speaking dialect may be perceived as less appropriate or less professional. Likewise, De Redactie (2016)^[5] is of the opinion that a dialect is frequently associated with a distinctive mode of pronunciation, a certain grammar style and a (restricted) word choice, and this is linked to a particular nation, locality, or – in particular – social class. Dialect speakers might be ashamed of their dialect, which then is an important cause for its potential disappearance. In provincial schools, students are sometimes discouraged from using their dialect. If you want to be successful, you have to speak Standard Dutch. If you speak a dialect in school, some teachers ignore you or even punish you; speaking a dialect is seen as something solely done by the lower socio-economic classes and as something that only someone with a lower intelligence does. Other reasons frequently mentioned for the declining use of dialects include the effects of globalization, the influence of the mass media, and a higher degree of prosperity, leading to the extinction of languages ​​in general.

Versloot understands this process all too well: “Do you miss the dodo?” he asks rhetorically (Van der Vlist, 2025)^[4]. Perhaps it is culturally and linguistically unfortunate, but it is also not a disaster that people adapt to their environment; language is simply something that is constantly changing and moving with society (cf. Bentahila & Davies, 1990^[6]). Why is the disappearance of regional languages and dialects then also seen as a negative development? Fewer different ways of speaking means less variation in grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary. In addition to such linguistic loss, the disappearance of regional languages and dialects can also be seen as cultural loss, as dialects are considered intangible cultural heritage (cf. however, Bentahila & Davies, 1989^[7]).

2. Developments in the Use of Frisian

2. Developments in the use of Frisian

Ten years ago, Driessen (2016)^[8] gave a lecture in the Frisian capital of Leeuwarden about developments in the use of Frisian. The basis for this was formed by large-scale data collected in 1994 and in 2014 from Dutch-born parents of children in grade 3 of primary education (6-year-olds). Two questions were asked: Which language do the parents speak most to each other? Which language does the child speak most with: (a) mother; (b) father; (c) brothers/sisters; (d) boyfriends/girlfriends? The answer options for both questions were: (1) Dutch; (2) Frisian, regional language or dialect. The percentage of children who spoke the most Frisian in 2014 was: with their mother 33%, with their father 34%, with their brothers/sisters 30%, and with their friends 22%. That was considerably less than in 1994, when it was 47, 49, 48 and 44% respectively. Characteristic of this negative development was the halving of the proportion of children who spoke Frisian with friends. Regarding the language use of parents, it was found that among themselves, in 2014, 35% of parents still spoke Frisian, compared to 58% in 1994. In addition, far fewer parents with a college or university education spoke Frisian than those with a lower education. Driessen’s conclusion was: it really doesn’t go well with Frisian. This message was anything but well received by those present at the lecture (mainly “deep-Frisians”: proud, stubborn, and steadfast people with a strong identity of their own; cf. Lundgren, 2016^[9]), and later in the Frisian media (newspapers, radio, TV). This couldn't be true! Several listeners came up with - anecdotal - evidence that a lot of Frisians still spoke Frisian. The Provincial States of Friesland took Driessen’s findings to the minister and received subsidies as part of administrative agreements to work on the protection and promotion of the Frisian language and culture; the last time it was €18 million (Provincje Fryslân, 2024^[10]). Recently, the Provincial States of Friesland (Provinciale Staten van Fryslân, 2026^[11]) went a step further and decreed that all Frisian children had to learn Frisian in primary and secondary education. The question is which theoretical basis underlies this, how realistic and feasible the whole plan is, and whether the position of all parents and children has been taken into account.

3. Recent Language Polls

3. Recent language polls

But what is the present state of the art in the use of the Frisian language? Recently, the Frisian Academy (Dekker et al., 2025; Planbureau Friesland, 2026^[12][13]) conducted an online language survey among a group of 18 years and older. They were asked: Which language did you first learn to speak as a child? This question is therefore quite different from Driessen’s research. After all, it does not say anything about the duration and frequency of language use. It only says something about the language the children spoke around the age of 1 (cf. Davies & Bentahila, 1989^[7]). The researchers reported that for 53% of the adult respondents, Frisian was the first language. In the countryside this was more often the case than in the city, for the elderly more often than for the young, and for the low and medium educated more often than for the highly educated. It was also asked: Which group of speakers do you consider yourself to be a member of? Only 24% of the adults considered themselves to be Frisian, 34% Dutch, and 31% both. It is noteworthy that only 42% of the respondents with Frisian as their mother tongue clearly identified themselves with Frisian, i.e., only 10% of the total number of Frisian respondents.

The Frisian language survey thus says nothing about the present use of Frisian. Based on representative data from 2021, Schmeets and Cornips (2021)^[14] delved deeper into the use of languages ​​and dialects among the group of 15 years and older. The question was: Which language or dialect is spoken the most at home? The respondents could choose from a long list of languages ​​and dialects. Of the Frisians, 40% said they speak Frisian the most. There were no differences between men and women; there were also hardly any related to the composition of the household. Regarding the latter, it is striking that the least Frisian is spoken in families with children. (It is possible that the parents consider Dutch to be more important for their children’s future than Frisian.) Except for the most highly educated, who generally speak little Frisian, there is no clear line in the speaking of Frisian among the other respondents. Most Frisian is spoken among the over 65 group.

4. Underlying Theories

4. Underlying theories

An argument that is often put forward for Frisian lessons is that a good command of the first language (i.e., Frisian) promotes the mastery of the second language (i.e., Dutch). This thesis was developed by Cummins (1979)^[15] in the 1970s. He stated that mastery of a second language is a function of the first language. But the language learner must first have reached a certain level in the first language, before that can have a positive effect on the acquisition of the second language (the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis, and the Threshold Hypothesis). Later, he nuanced this even further: both languages ​​must have a high status and be widely used in the environment of the language learner. Over the years, there has been a lot of criticism of these theses and this idea has therefore disappeared into the background (Baral, 1987; Pan & Wang, 2023^[16][17]). In the first place, because Cummins’ ideas were developed from his research in Canada, an officially bilingual country (English and French), where most of the inhabitants speak both languages ​​and they also both have a high status. This situation is completely incomparable with, for example, that of Turkish, Berber or Frisian in the Netherlands. In the second place, because the hypotheses may sound logical, but could not be adequately investigated empirically, and certainly could not be confirmed at all. In the third place, because the translation of the theses into daily educational practice was not so simple (if not impossible), especially in classes with multiple (minority) languages, teachers not trained for the purpose, and the absence of suitable teaching material.

Over the past decades, there has been regular reference to “translanguaging”, more of a concept than a theory (Bouzid & Javier, 2024; Cummins, 2022; García & Wei, 2014; Treffers-Daller, 2024^{[18][19][20][21]}). It is based on the idea that all languages ​​are equal and valuable, and that linguistic diversity should be seen as a strength. Language users switch between the languages ​​they speak, adapting to the context and making use of their previously acquired language knowledge, in order to develop new skills. It is not only about mastery of the language, but also about the connection with the cultural background. The problem here is that there is hardly any experience with it in the Netherlands and that there is no research available that shows how it works exactly and what it yields (Moraru et al., 2025)^[22]. As far as research has been carried out, it concerns foreign research (mostly from Asia and the Middle East), of weak methodological quality, or research that showed no differences with the usual monolingual immersion practice or research that gave preference to translanguaging but only in very specific situations (Huang & Chalmers, 2023^[23]). Moreover, it almost always concerns research among multilingual language learners with a migration background. Evidence of a positive transfer from Frisian to Dutch is also missing completely.

Recently, the Education Council (Onderwijsraad, 2025)^[24] issued an advisory report, in which it pleads for more and better use of linguistic diversity in the school, referring to both the “translanguaging” concept and Cummins’ theses. According to the Council, this diversity is often ignored in practice or even seen as an obstacle. Opportunities therefore remain unused when learning Dutch and when acquiring knowledge and skills in other subjects. The Council does not consider it necessary for teachers to master the other languages ​​themselves. They must respond to and make use of the existing language repertoire of their students. The starting point is that a previously learned language can be useful when learning a new language. Students can thus use their home language to learn Dutch faster and better. It can also have positive consequences for the well-being of students and their involvement in education. According to the Council, more attention to linguistic diversity is also important for students’ sense of belonging and their functioning in society. Both require an investment in, among other things, the training, professionalization and support of the teaching staff. The assumed positive transfer is repeatedly emphasized. But the Council merely refers to a few foreign studies and cannot provide any evidence for Frisian (or other minority languages).

Breetvelt (2025)^[25] strongly criticizes the Council’s report. According to her, it is problematic that a quarter of the students do not have Standard Dutch as their home language. The students do not have an adequate command of Dutch as the language of instruction and therefore achieve lower school performance. Often they are also children of low-educated parents. Precisely then, according to Breetvelt, it is necessary to make extra efforts to support the students in acquiring Dutch, particularly with regard to the basic skills. To then use regional languages ​​and dialects for learning Dutch and to equate them with foreign languages, while there can undeniably be a large language gap between them, is considered a remarkable (political) move. As a result, not only those of foreign origin are considered multilingual, but also Dutch people with a regional language or dialect for which standard Dutch is actually a foreign language. As a result, the population of students to whom the multilingual didactics apply, with the use of home languages ​​when learning Dutch, is greatly expanded. The Council’s call to use linguistic diversity means (even) more work pressure for teachers. In addition, research points out that the use of home languages ​​costs 20% of the teaching time and its implementation becomes even more difficult when there are several and divergent language groups in a classroom. Breetvelt also considers it remarkable that it is claimed that teachers do not have to master the home languages. Teachers therefore do not understand what the students say, and it becomes impossible to explain and give feedback in the home language. The advice also lacks attention to the students who speak Dutch at home, around three quarters of the students. They get less attention and become bored and demotivated; after all, using linguistic diversity is not effectively spent teaching time for them. This majority of the students are thus maneuvered towards the margin. In all of this, there is a lack of strong empirical evidence for the use of linguistic diversity in education, especially for the use of regional languages ​​and dialects. Breetvelt qualifies the advice of the Education Council to make better use of linguistic diversity as a matter of ideology rather than evidence.

5. Frisian in Schools

5. Frisian in schools

In Friesland, Frisian lessons in primary education have been legally compulsory since 1980, although a dispensation can be applied for. From Dekker et al. (2025)^[12], it can be deduced that more than a quarter of the 18-50-year-olds state that they have never had Frisian lessons, while around a third say that they had them every week. There is a big difference between the city and the countryside: in the countryside much less Frisian is taught. According to Varkevisser, Visser and Walsweer (2023)^[26] and Varkevisser et al. (2023)^[27] (cf. Riemersma, 2025^[28]), in the period 2020-2022, Frisian was taught as a subject in 78% of primary schools; in 2016-2018 that was still 83%. Of the teachers in primary education, 17% were authorized to teach Frisian; However, 25% had no authority. The time spent on lessons was quite limited; 20% of the schools taught 45 minutes or more per week during the first two years; in the higher education years, that was still only 10%. About 20% of the schools taught a maximum of 15 minutes of French per week. The attitude of primary schools towards Frisian lessons has become less positive; in 2016-2018, 76% of the schools thought this education was (very) important, in 2020-2022 this was still 72%. The share of school leaders and language coordinators who had (very) positive attitudes towards Frisian as a language of instruction dropped dramatically, from 38 to only 18%. No more than 22% of the schools were of the opinion that their pupils found Frisian (very) important, against 41% in 2016-2018. The school boards also have more negative attitudes towards Frisian lessons. They find it difficult to combine it with the educational needs of the students, with the vision of the school and the linguistic background of Frisian students with a variant that deviates from the Standard Frisian. The students with Frisian as their home language follow the Frisian lessons at the same time as the students with Frisian as a foreign language and also use the same teaching materials. It is differentiated according to the mastery level to be achieved.

In the first grades of secondary education, Frisian has been compulsory since 1993, but there is no clear policy plan for all schools regarding Frisian as a subject and as a language of instruction. Slightly more than 69% of the schools provide Frisian as a subject in the first year, but only 18% of the schools offer it in both the first and second year. For 2020-2022, it was estimated that 39% of the first two years of secondary education have Frisian as their first language, against 52% Dutch and 9% another language. From 1974, Frisian can be taken as an exam subject in upper secondary education; in 2026, 200 students did that (out of a total of almost 18,000 in grades 3-6) at 29% of the schools. As reasons for not offering Frisian as an exam subject, the schools state that the students have little interest, that there are insufficiently qualified teachers, and problems when introducing Frisian into the curriculum. In 2023, 176 students took Frisian as an exam subject, with an average grade of 6.3 and 15% failing. This is obviously very disappointing, since the children probably have Frisian as their home language and have had Frisian lessons for years in both primary and secondary education. According to Dekker et al. (2025)^[12] in 2025, 90% of the adult respondents said they could understand Frisian very well/well, 64% could speak very well/well, 61% could read very well/well, and 19% could write very well/well.

6. Quality of Frisian Lessons

6. Quality of Frisian lessons

In the school year 2018/2019, the Inspectorate of Education (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2019^[29]) carried out a themed study on the situation of Frisian in primary and secondary education. The results were, once again, not really positive and hopeful – ten years earlier this turned out not to be the case either. Since then, extra attention has been paid to the subject of Frisian and the conditions have improved. For example, teaching materials were developed and tests were made to measure the language development of students. According to the Inspectorate, the teachers have not yet made sufficient use of it, however. The Inspectorate often sees a lack of direction in school boards and little support and ambition at provincial and local level. There are too few competent and skilled Frisian teachers in primary education. Another problem is the many temporary exemptions that the Province of Friesland has given to schools. The purpose of such an exemption is that a school can better adapt to the language proficiency of the average student. However, this often results in the level of ambition remaining low. One point for secondary education is that Frisian is often a small subject, there is only one Frisian teacher at the school and it is expensive for the school. Students themselves state that they find the subject Frisian important, but most of them do not think that the Frisian lessons they receive improve their language skills. In addition, more than half of them say that they do not find the Frisian lessons fun and instructive.

7. Conclusion

7. Conclusion

Earlier this year, the Provincial States of Friesland (Provinciale Staten van Fryslân, 2026^[1130]) unanimously decided that all Frisian children must learn Frisian by 2026, with the goals: actively using Frisian, and consciously participating in Frisian culture. Schools will no longer be exempted. By 2030, all schools must have an A profile, that is to say, the highest level, including understanding, speaking, reading, and also writing. But does that plan meet a number of crucial conditions? Does Frisian have a high status? In some circles, yes, but only a small part of the population unequivocally identifies itself with Frisian. Is there enough enthusiasm? Yes, with the provincial administrators, but in view of the small number of students who take Frisian as an exam subject, clearly not among them. In addition, more than half of the students do not find the lessons fun and instructive. Are the Frisian lessons effective? That is, given the language skills and exam results, but very much the question. Are there enough teachers? Certainly not. Is the students’ language proficiency of such a level that there could be a transfer? Certainly not. Is the central condition met that Frisian is the home language of the children? Absolutely not. For more than two-thirds of the children, Frisian is not the (current) home language, which means that for the majority, by definition, there can be no question of transfer. All those children therefore simply have to learn another foreign language. Have the parents and children been asked for their opinion? No, an extra subject is simply imposed on them, which means that precious teaching time is lost. By analogy of Breetvelt (2025)^[25], the obligation for all children living in Friesland to learn Frisian is more a question of ideology than of realism, feasibility and evidence.