Dutch required or preferred: should you still apply?

Compare these two language requirements:

“Dutch required; English preferred.”

“English required; Dutch preferred.”

Almost the same words, rearranged. But for someone who speaks English and little or no Dutch, they describe two very different situations. In the first, strong English does not replace the Dutch requirement. In the second, Dutch is something the employer would like you to have, rather than a stated condition of the role.

That difference is easy to miss when you are scanning vacancies quickly. Seeing the word Dutch can be enough to make someone move on, while seeing English can make another job look more accessible than it really is.

The useful question is not simply which languages appear in the advert, but what role each of them plays: which language is mandatory, which can provide an alternative route, which is merely preferred, and which information is still missing.

The small words matter

Once you start reading language requirements this way, words such as and and or become surprisingly important.

“Dutch and English required” asks for both languages.

“Dutch or English required” offers two possible ways to meet the requirement. In that sentence, the word or is doing real work.

The same applies to “Dutch or German required.” If you meet the stated German requirement, the wording gives you an explicit route into the role without also requiring Dutch, unless another part of the advert says otherwise.

More complicated combinations are possible too. “Dutch or German required; English essential” still requires English, alongside either Dutch or German. The alternative applies to one part of the requirement, not to everything else in the vacancy.

This is why it is worth reading the language information across the whole advert rather than reacting to one promising sentence in isolation. If one section offers German as an alternative but another explicitly says Dutch is required, that contradiction needs clarification.

Slashes are even less helpful. “Dutch/English” might mean either language, both languages, or simply that both are used in some way. The slash itself does not settle the question, so it is better treated as ambiguous than quietly translated into or because that would be the more convenient interpretation.

A preference still matters

Take “English required; Dutch is an advantage.”

English is the stated requirement. Dutch adds value, but it is not presented as compulsory. If you meet the English requirement, lacking Dutch does not mean you have failed the language conditions as written.

That does not make the Dutch preference meaningless. An employer may still value it when choosing between candidates. The mistake is to push the wording too far in either direction: a preference should not be treated as a hidden requirement, but neither should it be treated as something that cannot possibly affect the decision.

Now reverse the combination:

“Dutch required; English preferred.”

Here, excellent English may be useful, but it does not replace Dutch. The employer has told you which language is mandatory and which one is an extra.

This is why scanning for individual words such as Dutch, English, German or Polish is not enough. You are reading the relationship between them.

English is not the only alternative

Consider:

“Polish or English required; Dutch preferred.”

Polish and English are the two stated routes through the language requirement. Dutch is additional.

Someone who meets the Polish requirement therefore has a genuine language pathway even if their English is limited. There is no reason to treat English as the default benchmark simply because the candidate is international.

The same principle applies when an employer names German, French, Spanish or another language. What matters is whether that language is explicitly accepted, not whether it happens to be English.

A candidate may otherwise notice Dutch first, assume the vacancy is closed to them, and miss the fact that another language already gives them a valid route in.

An English advert does not answer everything

An advert written in English tells you the language of the advert. It does not automatically tell you the language of the workplace.

The same goes for phrases such as “international company” or “international team.” They may give useful context, but they do not tell you which language will be used during training, in meetings, with customers or when writing reports.

If the advert says nothing more specific, you have an absence of information rather than a confirmed language pathway.

That uncertainty can work in either direction. The role may operate mainly in English. Dutch may be needed for part of the work. The language information may simply have been left out.

Rather than trying to solve that uncertainty yourself, use the job description to work out what you need to ask. If the role involves customer emails, for example, ask which language those emails are normally written in. If training is mentioned, ask which language the training is delivered in.

The responsibilities can help you form a useful question, but they do not supply the answer. For a promising role, that is worth clarifying before you spend an evening tailoring a CV and writing a cover letter.

Knowing the language is only half the answer

Even when the accepted language is clear, the required level may not be.

Words such as fluent, professional proficiency, working proficiency and conversational Dutch sound fairly specific, but they can still leave a lot open unless the advert connects them to the actual work.

Someone might be perfectly comfortable chatting with colleagues in Dutch but not ready to write a formal report. A native Polish speaker may speak Polish effortlessly in daily life but still lack the specialist vocabulary used in a particular profession.

Speaking, listening, reading and writing do not always sit at the same level either, which makes a single proficiency label a fairly blunt instrument.

It can be more useful to look at what the job requires you to do in that language. Will you need to follow spoken instructions, explain a technical problem, handle difficult customer conversations, write detailed emails or produce formal documents?

That also gives you a more useful way to describe your own level.

“I’m comfortable discussing day-to-day work in Dutch, but I would need support with formal written reports.”

That tells an employer much more than stretching your ability to fit a vague label such as professional proficiency.

The same applies when the employer expects your language skills to improve after you start. Being willing to learn is useful, but it is different from already having the level needed on day one. If the advert is vague, that starting point is worth asking about.

So, should you apply?

If the wording gives you a clear route through the language requirement, there is no reason to reject the vacancy simply because another preferred language appears alongside it.

If something important is genuinely unclear — the required level, an ambiguous slash or the working language — ask about that specific point.

And if Dutch is explicitly required and you cannot meet that requirement, a preferred English, German or Polish skill does not remove the gap unless the employer says it can.

The aim is not to talk yourself into every vacancy or rule yourself out of every imperfect match. It is simply to make the decision using what the advert actually tells you.

That is also the principle behind LingoWerk. A required language, an accepted alternative, a preference and a genuine unknown are not the same thing, and they should not be presented as though they are.

Three questions worth asking

When the advert still leaves something unresolved, a short message to the recruiter can often settle it:

1. What language would I use most day to day in this role?
2. Is Dutch essential from day one, and what level would I need?
3. Would German meet the language requirement if I don’t speak Dutch?

Swap German for Polish, French, Spanish or whichever language applies to you.

The point is not to make the recruiter explain the whole vacancy again. It is to ask one clear question about the part the advert did not answer.