The article presents an investigation of the objective and subjective ethnolinguistic vitality of West Frisian, a minority language spoken in the Netherlands. While the study provides valuable insights into the status, demography, and institutional support for the language, it suffers from several limitations.
Firstly, the sample size is small (N=15), which raises questions about the representativeness of the findings. Moreover, due to low literacy rates among West Frisian speakers, the questionnaire used in the study was administered in person, which may have introduced interviewer bias.
Secondly, while the study acknowledges that language planning is essential for protecting minority languages in multilingual societies like the Netherlands, it does not explore potential risks associated with such planning. For example, promoting a minority language may lead to resentment among dominant groups or create tensions between different linguistic communities.
Thirdly, while the study identifies concerns about the role of West Frisian in education and its presence in public spaces, it does not provide concrete recommendations for addressing these issues. Furthermore, it does not explore potential trade-offs between promoting West Frisian and other policy goals such as economic development or social integration.
Overall, while this study provides useful insights into West Frisian's ethnolinguistic vitality and its promotion in policy documents and statistical data, it would benefit from a more nuanced analysis of potential risks and trade-offs associated with language planning.