Advertisement

Language Policy

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 199–216 | Cite as

Civilization versus commerce: on the sociolinguistic effects of the deregulation of the TV market on Flemish public service broadcasting

  • Sarah Van Hoof
Original Paper

Abstract

In the globalized economy, old metadiscursive regimes have been challenged by new conditions which are often considered to be more favourable to heteroglossic practices. In Flemish Belgium, the liberalization of the TV market is said to have transformed the broadcaster VRT from a public service aiming at educating viewers into a competitive corporation eager to commodify nonstandard language use to attract viewers. The broadcast media, traditionally a stronghold of the standard language, thus appear to have become a key site for the valorization of traditional vernaculars and hybrid linguistic practices drawing on both standard and vernacular speech forms. This paper confronts these impressions with empirical data and investigates the sociolinguistic impact of the deregulation of the Flemish TV market in detail. It does so by analyzing the discourses produced by the VRT’s policy makers and the actual linguistic practices on the VRT during the monopolist and the commercial era. It points out how during the monopolist era the genre of comedy already provided a discursive space where the VRT’s standard language policy could be subverted, and shows how a market discourse may have colonized the VRT’s current language policy, but has left its original standardization ambitions by and large intact. The VRT is shown to nowadays commodify both standard and nonstandard speech forms, but in ways that do not fundamentally challenge the traditional order of high (standard) and low (nonstandard) speech styles. New corporate logics can thus be seen to reproduce rather than drastically alter linguistic hierarchies traditionally attributed to state actors.

Keywords

Public service television Flanders Commodification Deregulation Language ideology Language regimentation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Alfonso Del Percio, Jürgen Jaspers and the participants of the panel ‘The commodification of languages and speakers in Late Capitalism’ for their valuable feedback on earlier versions of this material. Thanks are also due to Wim Vandenbussche and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments. Any mistakes are of course my own.

References

  1. Agha, A. (2005). Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15, 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Agha, A. (2011). Meet mediatization. Language & Communication, 31, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Androutsopoulos, J. (2007). Bilingualism in the mass media and on the internet. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach (pp. 207–230). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Androutsopoulos, J. (2010). The study of language and space in media discourse. In P. Auer & J. E. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and space. An international handbook of linguistic variation. Volume I: Theory and methods (pp. 740–758). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Androutsopoulos, J. (2014). Mediatization and sociolinguistic change. Key concepts, research traditions, open issues. In J. Androutsopoulos (Ed.), Mediatization and sociolinguistic change (pp. 3–48). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Appadurai, A. (1986). Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 3–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bauwens, J. (2007). De openbare omroep en haar kijkers: oude liefde roest niet? In A. Dhoest & H. Van den Bulck (Eds.), Publieke televisie in Vlaanderen. Een geschiedenis (pp. 91–124). Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
  10. Biltereyst, D. (2007). Kunst-, cultuur- en educatieve programma’s: bedreigde categorieën of ultieme legitimatie? In A. Dhoest & H. Van den Bulck (Eds.), Publieke televisie in Vlaanderen. Een geschiedenis (pp. 247–272). Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
  11. Buelens, G. (2007). In den beginne was het Woord. Jan Boon en de aandacht voor volksopvoeding en literatuur op de Vlaamse televisie. In K. Absillis & K. Jacobs (Eds.), Van Hugo Claus tot hoelahoep. Vlaanderen in beweging 1950–1960 (pp. 125–138). Antwerp/Apeldoorn: Garant.Google Scholar
  12. Busch, B. (2006). Changing media spaces: The transformative power of heteroglossic practices. In C. Mar-Molinero & P. Stevenson (Eds.), Language ideologies, policies and practices (pp. 206–219). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coupland, N. (2010). Language, ideology, media and social change. In K. Junod & D. Maillat (Eds.), Performing the self (pp. 127–151). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
  14. Coupland, N. (2014). Sociolinguistic change, vernacularization and broadcast British media. In J. Androutsopoulos (Ed.), Mediatization and sociolinguistic change (pp. 67–96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Dhoest, A. (2007). Ontspanning: van bijkomende opdracht tot kerntaak. In A. Dhoest & H. Van den Bulck (Eds.), Publieke televisie in Vlaanderen. Een geschiedenis (pp. 287–311). Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dhoest, A. (2011). When regional becomes national: The production and reception of Flemish TV drama in a culturally divided country. Critical Studies in Television, 6(2), 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Florquin, J. (1972). Hier spreekt men Nederlands. Taaltips voor iedereen. Deel 4. Hasselt: Heideland-Orbis.Google Scholar
  19. Gal, S. (2006). Migration, minorities and multilingualism: Language ideologies in Europe. In P. Stevenson & C. Mar-Molinero (Eds.), Language ideologies, policies and practices: Language and the future of Europe (pp. 13–27). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geeraerts, D. (1998). VRT-Nederlands en Soap-Vlaams. Nederlands van Nu, 46, 75–77.Google Scholar
  21. Goossens, J. (2000). De toekomst van het Nederlands in Vlaanderen. Ons Erfdeel, 43, 3–13.Google Scholar
  22. Heller, M. (2003). Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7, 473–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heller, M., & Duchêne, A. (2012). Pride and profit. Changing discourses of language, capital and nation-state. In A. Duchêne & M. Heller (Eds.), Language in late capitalism. Pride and profit (pp. 3–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language. Ideologies, polities and identities (pp. 35–83). Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press.Google Scholar
  25. Jaffe, A. M. (2009). Indeterminacy and regularization: A process-based approach to the study of sociolinguistic variation and language ideologies. Sociolinguistic Studies, 3, 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janssens, G., & Marynissen, A. (2003). Het Nederlands vroeger en nu. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
  27. Jaspers, J. (2014). From unwanted to so-called expertise: Ideologizing sociolinguistics in mainstream media. Science Communication, 36, 570–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jaspers, J., & Meeuwis, M. (2006). Playing with language in a mediapromoted standardisation context: Public broadcasting and adolescent linguistic practices in Flanders. Acta Academica Supplementum, 2, 111–140.Google Scholar
  29. Jaspers, J., & Van Hoof, S. (2013). Hyperstandardisation in Flanders: Extreme enregisterment and its aftermath. Pragmatics, 23, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaspers, J., & Van Hoof, S. (2015). Ceci n’est pas une tussentaal. Evoking standard and vernacular language through mixed Dutch in Flemish telecinematic discourse. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 27(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnstone, B. (2009). Pittsburghese shirts: Commodification and the enregisterment of an urban dialect. American Speech, 84(2), 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelly-Holmes, H. (2011). Sex, lies and thematising Irish: New media, old discourses? Journal of Language and Politics, 10(4), 511–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kelly-Holmes, H., & Milani, T. (2011). Thematising multilingualism in the media. Journal of Language and Politics, 10(4), 467–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mautner, G. (2010). The spread of corporate discourse to other domains. In H. Kelly-Holmes & G. Mautner (Eds.), Language and the market (pp. 215–225). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Milani, T. M., Jonsson, R., & Mhlambi, I. J. (2015). Shooting the subversive: When non-normative linguistic practices go mainstream in the media. In J. Nortier & B. A. Svendsen (Eds.), Language, youth and identity in the 21st century. Linguistic practices across urban spaces (pp. 119–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moriarty, M. (2014). Súil Eile. Media, sociolinguistic change and the Irish Language. In J. Androutsopoulos (Ed.), Mediatization and sociolinguistic change (pp. 463–486). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. Mugglestone, L. (2003). Talking proper. The rise of accent as a social symbol. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Plevoets, K. (2008). Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal. Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfo-syntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands. K.U.Leuven: unpublished Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
  39. Reynebeau, M. (2006). De Vlamingen begrijpen elkaar nog altijd niet. De Standaard. 11 June 2006.Google Scholar
  40. Saeys, F. (2007). Statuut, organisatie en financiering van de openbare televisieomroep in Vlaanderen. In A. Dhoest & H. Van den Bulck (Eds.), Publieke televisie in Vlaanderen. Een geschiedenis (pp. 23–52). Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
  41. Scannell, P. (1990). Public service broadcasting: The history of a concept. In A. Goodwin & G. Whannell (Eds.), Understanding television (pp. 11–29). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Scannell, P., & Cardiff, D. (1991). A social history of British broadcasting. Volume one 1922–1939. Serving the nation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Schulties, B. (2015). Do you speak Arabic? Managing axes of adequation and difference in pan-Arab talent programs. Language & Communication, 44, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brenneis & R. Macaulay (Eds.), The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284–306). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  45. Taeldeman, J. (2008). Zich stabiliserende kenmerken in Vlaamse tussentaal. Taal en Tongval, 60, 26–50.Google Scholar
  46. Theissen, S. (2005). Welk Nederlands of wat voor Nederlands voor Franstalige studenten? Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis, LIX, 129–137.Google Scholar
  47. Van de Velde, H. (1996). Verkavelingsvlaams. Wat is mij dat nu? In R. van Hout & J. Kruijsen (Eds.), Taalvariaties. Toonzettingen en modulaties op een thema (pp. 261–272). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  48. Van den Bulck, H. (2001). Public service television and national identity as a project of modernity: The example of Flemish television. Media, Culture and Society, 23, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van den Bulck, H. (2007). Het beleid van de publieke televisie: van hoogmis van de moderniteit naar postmodern sterk merk? In A. Dhoest & H. Van den Bulck (Eds.), Publieke televisie in Vlaanderen. Een geschiedenis (pp. 59–82). Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
  50. Van Hoof, S. (2015). Feiten en fictie. Een sociolinguïstische analyse van het taalgebruik in fictiereeksen op de Vlaamse openbare omroep (1977–2012). Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
  51. Van Hoof, S. (2016). Knowing the ins and outs of linguistic standardization: Enregisterment of Standard Dutch and dialect in late 1970s Flemish TV fiction. In G. Rutten & K. Horner (Eds.), Metalinguistic perspectives on Germanic languages: European case studies from past to present (pp. 131–155). Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  52. Van Hoof, S., & Jaspers, J. (2016). Negotiating linguistic standardization in Flemish TV fiction around 1980: Laying the grounds for a new linguistic normality. In J. Thøgersen, N. Coupland, & J. Mortensen (Eds.), Style, media and language ideologies (pp. 161–187). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
  53. Van Hoof, S., & Vandekerckhove, B. (2013). Feiten en fictie. Taalvariatie in Vlaamse televisiereeksen vroeger en nu. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 18, 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vandenbussche, W. (2010). Standardisation through the media. The case of Dutch in Flanders. In P. Gilles, J. Scharloth, & E. Ziegler (Eds.), Variatio delectat. Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation (pp. 309–322). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  55. Vosters, R. (2013). Dutch, Flemish or Hollandic? Social and ideological aspects of linguistic convergence and divergence during the United Kingdom of the Netherlands (1815–1830). In E. Barát & P. Studer (Eds.), Ideological conceptualisations of language. Discourses of linguistic diversity (pp. 35–54). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  56. Willemyns, R. (2013). Dutch. Biography of a language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Primary sources

  1. Anon. (s.d.). De openbare omroep in Vlaanderen. Hoe ziet de BRT zichzelf in de toekomst? Internal document [VRT archive].Google Scholar
  2. Anon. (1977). Dwarskijker. De schimmen van Rubens en Van Gogh. Rubens, schilder en diplomaat (BRT, 30 oktober). Humo. 10 Nov 1977.Google Scholar
  3. Anon. (1978). Notulen nr. 250 – Raad van Bestuur. 16 Jan 1978. Internal document [VRT archive].Google Scholar
  4. Bal, N. (1985). De mens is wat hij doet. BRT-memoires. Leuven: Kritak.Google Scholar
  5. Boon, J. (1962). Zo sprak Jan Boon. Toespraken tot een gemengd gehoor. Hasselt: Heideland.Google Scholar
  6. Ceuleers, J. (1999). Uitgekeken. Mijn wonderjaren. Antwerp: Icarus.Google Scholar
  7. Goossens, C. (s.d.). Cultuurbeleid van de publieke omroep van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Internal document [VRT archive].Google Scholar
  8. Goossens, C. (1989a). Dienstnota aan E. Berode. Betreft: Taalbeleid. Internal document [VRT archive].Google Scholar
  9. Goossens, C. (1989b). Nota voor de Vaste Commissie van de Raad van Beheer. Betreft: Taalbeleid. Internal document [VRT archive].Google Scholar
  10. Goossens, C. (1993). Nota voor de Vaste Commissie van de Raad van Bestuur. Betreft: Taalbeleid. Internal document [VRT archive].Google Scholar
  11. Goossens, C. (1998). Radio en televisie in Vlaanderen. Een geschiedenis. Leuven: Davidsfonds.Google Scholar
  12. Hendrickx, R. (1998). Taalcharter. https://taal.vrt.be/taalcharter. Accessed 13 Feb 2017.
  13. Hendrickx, R. (2001a). Campagne tussentaal. 16 Aug 2001. Internal document [VRT archive].Google Scholar
  14. Hendrickx, R. (2001b). Laat ons ne keer tegoei naar onszelf luisteren. http://www.vrt.be/taal/laat-ons-ne-keer-te-goei-naar-onszelf-luisteren. Accessed 19 July 2016.
  15. Hendrickx, R. (2011). Toespraak taaldag 2011. http://taal.site/teksten/toespraak_taaldag2011.pdf. Accessed 13 Feb 2017.
  16. HVGo (2010). Eén kan vraag naar slabbetjes nauwelijks bijhouden. Het Belang van Limburg. 8 Jan 2010.Google Scholar
  17. jdr & llo (2013). Engels uit ‘Eigen kweek’ scoort. De Standaard. 25 Nov 2013. http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20131125_002. Accessed 13 Feb 2017.
  18. km (2015). Kijkcijfers Bevergem in de lift. De Standaard. 8 Oct 2015. http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20151008_01908928. Accessed 13 Feb 2017.
  19. KULeuven. (2014). Project VRT-taalhantering (1998–2008). http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.be/nedling/wsmedts/vrt.htm. Accessed 18 July 2016.
  20. Morrens, H. (1993). Uittreksel Notulen Nr. 382 van 08.02.93. D.S.I. 6599E (306) – Taalbeleid. 8 Feb 1993. Internal document [VRT archive].Google Scholar
  21. Van Dessel, P. (1978). Addendum Notulen nr. 250 – Raad van Bestuur. 16 Jan 1978. Internal document [VRT archive].Google Scholar
  22. VRT (1967). Hier spreekt men Nederlands. 14 Sept 1967 [TV broadcast, VRT archive].Google Scholar
  23. VRT (1976). BRT Jaarverslag. Brussels: BRT [VRT archive].Google Scholar
  24. VRT (1978). BRT Jaarverslag. Brussels: BRT [VRT archive].Google Scholar
  25. VRT. (2011). VRT wil mee de taalnorm in Vlaanderen bepalen. http://www.vrt.be/taal/vrt-wil-mee-de-taalnorm-in-vlaanderen-bepalen. Accessed 19 Jan 2017.
  26. VRT. (2012). Taalcharter 2012. http://www.vrt.be/taal/taalcharter-2012. Accessed 19 Jan 2017.
  27. VRT & KULeuven (2002). Overeenkomst inzake project controle taalgebruik VRT. 11 June 2002. Internal document [VRT archive].Google Scholar
  28. VRT & Vlaamse Gemeenschap (1997). Beheersovereenkomst 19972001. Internal document [VRT archive].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ghent University, Department of Translation, Interpreting and CommunicationGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations