Cover not available
Article published In:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 5:2 (2016) ► pp.145–159

Zoals de ouden zongen, piepen de jongen?

De taal van ouders en taal en taalvaardigheid van hun kinderen

| Radboud University

From birth on, children are confronted with an ever-growing variation of languages. In Dutch primary schools the main language model nowadays is a submersion model centring round Standard-Dutch. The disappointing results of several small-scale bilingual experiments and the large-scale implementation of a bilingual model for immigrant children in the past had led the Ministry of Education to abandon bilingual education, that is, with the exception of models with English, German or French as a second language. The focus of the present article is on language variety at home and school. The main question is how the mother tongue, viz. the language the parents speak, influences their child’s proficiency in Dutch. Analysing data of 14,000 grade 2 pupils that were collected in the 2007, 2010 and 2013 measurement waves of the national COOL5–18 study, this paper first of all describes how often children speak their mother tongue. A distinction is made between Dutch; Frisian and Dutch regional languages and dialects; and foreign languages. The latter mostly refers to Turkish and Berber language varieties. Next, the correlation between speaking the mother tongue and the children’s proficiency in Dutch is analysed. The results show that for children of Dutch, Frisian and Dutch regional languages and dialect speaking parents there are no differences in level of Dutch relative to the number of times they speak their mother tongue. For children of a foreign language speaking parents, however, there is a tendency that the more often they speak their mother tongue the lower their proficiency in Dutch is. This negative relationship is not reduced by accounting for the mother’s educational level and proficiency of Dutch. Most of the children who speak a foreign language are of Turkish or Moroccan descent who in terms of school achievement lag considerably behind their native-Dutch peers. It is suggested that implementing so-called transition classes with targeted language courses during one school year and a follow-up in later years may help diminish this gap.

Keywords: Dutch, language proficiency, foreign languages, dialects, language choice, mother tongue, multilingualism, educational disadvantage

Article language: Dutch

Published online: 23 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.5.2.03dri
References
Baker, C
(2001) Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Carrington, V., & Luke, A
(1997) Literacy and Bourdieu’s sociological theory: A reframing. Language and Education, 11(2), 96–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, J
(1981) Language. In T. Barrows (Ed.), A survey of global understanding: Final report (pp. 87–100). New Rochelle, NY: Change Magazine Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J
(1988) Power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cornips, L., & Heuij, K. van den
(2015) Staat het opgroeien in dialect een goede woordenschat in het Nederlands in de weg? Levende Talen Magazine, 102(7), 12–16.Google Scholar
Cummins, J
(1991) Conversational and academic language proficiency in bilingual contexts. In J. Hulstijn & J. Matter (Eds.), Reading in two languages. AILA review 8 (pp. 75–89). Amsterdam: Free University Press.Google Scholar
Driessen, G
(2004) De taalsituatie van Caribische en Mediterrane immigranten. Ontwikkelingen in taalvaardigheid en taalkeuzes in Antilliaanse, Surinaamse, Turkse en Marokkaanse gezinnen gedurende de periode 1995-2003. Migrantenstudies, 20(2), 74–93.Google Scholar
(2005) From cure to curse: The rise and fall of bilingual education programs in the Netherlands. In J. Söhn (Ed.), The effectiveness of bilingual school programs for immigrant children. WZB discussion paper SP IV 2005-601 (pp. 77–107). Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
(2006) Ontwikkelingen in het gebruik van streektalen en dialecten in de periode 1995-2003. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 75(1), 103–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) De bestrijding van onderwijsachterstanden Een review van opbrengsten en effectieve aanpakken. Nijmegen: ITS.Google Scholar
Driessen, G., Veen, A., & Daalen, M. van
(2015) VVE-doelgroepkinderen in de voorschoolse fase. Indicering en aanbod. Nijmegen: ITS.Google Scholar
Driessen, G., Elshof, D., Mulder, L., & Roeleveld, J
(2015) Cohortonderzoek COOL5-18. Technisch rapport basisonderwijs, derde meting 2013/14. Nijmegen: ITS, Amsterdam: Kohnstamm Instituut.Google Scholar
Driessen, G., Krikhaar, E., Graaff, R. de, Unsworth, S., Leest, B., Coppens, K., & Wierenga, J
(2016) Evaluatie pilot Tweetalig Primair Onderwijs. Startmeting 2014/15. Publieksversie. Nijmegen: ITS.Google Scholar
Els, T. van
(2001) The European Union, its institutions and its languages: Some language political observations. Current Issues in Language Planning, 2(4) 311–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukkink, R., Jilink, L., & Oostdam, R
(2015) Met een bik op de toekomst. Een meta-analyse van de effecten van VVE op de ontwikkeling van kinderen in Nederland. Amsterdam: Hogeschool van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Graaff, R. de
(2015) Vroeg of laat Engels in het basisonderwijs. Wat levert het op? Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 16(2), 5–15.Google Scholar
Hattie, J
(2009) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jonkman, R., & Riemersma, A
(2015) De heterogene taalsituatie en het meertalig onderwijs in Friesland. Levende Talen Magazine, 102(7), 20–24.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.K., Hutchinson, Lindsey A., & Winsler, A
(2015) Bilingual education in the United States: An historical overview and examination of two-way immersion. Educational Review, 67(2), 236–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroon, S., & Vallen, T
(2004) Dialect en schoolprestaties: Een terugblik. In S. Kroon & T. Vallen (Eds.), Dialect en school in Limburg (pp. 33–53). Amsterdam: Aksant.Google Scholar
Lansink, N., & Hemker, B
(2012) Wetenschappelijke verantwoording van de toetsen Taal voor kleuters voor groep 1 en 2 uit het Cito Volgsysteem primair onderwijs. Arnhem: Cito.Google Scholar
Mulder, L., Veen, I. van der, Derriks, M., & Elshof, D
(2012) De schakelklasleerlingen verder gevolgd. Het tweede vervolgonderzoek bij leerlingen die in 2006/07 of 2007/08 in een schakelklas hebben gezeten. Nijmegen: ITS.Google Scholar
Reljić, G., Ferring, D., & Martin, R
(2015) A meta-analysis on the effectiviness of bilingual programs in Europe. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 92–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roeleveld, J
(2011) De cognitieve ontwikkeling van doelgroepleerlingen gedurende het basisonderwijs. In J. Roeleveld, G. Driessen, G. Ledoux, J. Cuppen, & J. Meijer (Eds.), Doelgroepleerlingen in het basisonderwijs. Historische ontwikkeling en actuele situatie (pp. 61–88). Amsterdam: Kohnstamm Instituut.Google Scholar
Ross, S
(1998) Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15(1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sierens, S., & Van Avermaet, P
(2014) Language diversity in education: Evolving from multilingual education to functional multilingual learning. In D. Little, C. Leung, & P. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Managing diversity in education: Languages, policies, pedagogies (pp. 201–224). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Söhn, J
(Ed.) (2004) The effectiveness of bilingual school programs for immigrant children. WZB Discussion Paper SP IV 2005-601. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
Swaan, A. de
(2003) Bedreigde talen, sociolinguïstiek en taalsentimentalisme. Levende Talen, 70(2), 15–26.Google Scholar
Taalunie
(2015) Wat is standaardtaal? 15 October 2015, retrieved on 15 from [URL].Google Scholar
Tavecchio, L., & Oostdam, R
(2013) Niet elk kind is ontvankelijk voor vroegtijdige stimuleringsprogramma’s. De invloed van onderliggende factoren van schoolrijpheid in relatie tot de voor- en vroegschoolse educatie. Pedagogiek, 33(1), 37–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
UNESCO
(2003) Language vitality and endangerment. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Van Avermaet, P
(2015) Waarom zijn we bang voor meertaligheid? Levende Talen Magazine, 102(7), 6–10.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., & Verhelst, M
(2011) Naar een volwaardig talenbeleid. Omgaan met meertaligheid in het Vlaams onderwijs. Vonk, 40(4), 3–27.Google Scholar
Waal, M. de
(2013) Ontwikkeling van het Standaardnederlands 15 October 2015, retrieved from [URL].Google Scholar
White, M., & Kaufman, G
(1997) Language usage, social capital, and school completion among immigrants and native-born ethnic groups. Social Science Quarterly, 78(2), 385–398.Google Scholar
Wikipedia
(2016) Taalpolitiek 12 July 2016, retrieved from [URL].Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

van der Wilt, Femke, Inouk Boerma, Bert van Oers & Chiel van der Veen
2019. The effect of three interactive reading approaches on language ability: an exploratory study in early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 27:4 ► pp. 566 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.