TY - JOUR
T1 - Regional languages on Twitter
T2 - A comparative study between Frisian and Limburgish
AU - Jongbloed-Faber, L.
AU - van Loo, Jolie
AU - Cornips, L.
PY - 2017/12/30
Y1 - 2017/12/30
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.16017.jon
DO - https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.16017.jon
M3 - Article
VL - 6
SP - 174
EP - 196
JO - Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
JF - Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
SN - 2211-7245
IS - 2
ER -