Interacting mental lexicons / grammars of bilingual speakers: “how Dutch influences Frisian”

1. Interacting mental lexicons / grammars of bilingual speakers:“how Dutch influences Frisian” Eric Hoekstra Bouke Slofstra Arjen Versloot Fryske Akademy (NL)

2. Frisian……

3. 3 case studiesillustrating the impact of Dutch cognates on grammatical ‘behaviour’ of Frisian • The optionality of final [ə] on nouns • The presence of an intermediate [ə] in compounds • The choice between the synonymous suffixes –heid and –ens, corresponding to Dutch -heid

4. Case I: /ə/-apocope and language contact Dutch has regular apocope of historical final vowels Frisian has apocope only in some cases, c.f. F. planke ~ D. plank ‘shelf’ F. brêge ~ D. brug ‘bridge’ In some words, apocope is optional in Frisian (dialectal, stylistic, metric or other variation) F. mis(se) ~ D. mis ‘mass’ F. bean(e) ~ D. boon ‘bean’ F. bûs(e) ~ D. zak ‘pocket’ (D.buis = ‘tube’)

5. Frisian – Dutch cognates • (nearly) identical words (Holl++) F. planke ~ D. plank ‘shelf’ F. mis(se) ~ D. mis ‘mass’ • (nearly) identical consonant frame (Holl+) F. brêge ~ D. brug ‘bridge’ F. bean(e) ~ D. boon ‘bean’ 3. different lexemes (with same semantics) (Holl-) F. sûpe ~ D. karnemelk ‘buttermilk’ F. bûs(e) ~ D. zak ‘pocket’ (buis = ‘tube’)

6. /ə/-apocope and language contact

8. Tendency versus rule • Explanatory power of the variable [Holl] = 9% • Random distribution returns 85% correct cases • Rule based distribution returns only 71% correct

9. Case 2: Compounds and intermediate schwa Compounds in Frisian and Dutch • “goat cheese” • Fr. geit + tsiis > geit-e-tsiis • D. geit + kaas > geit-en-kaas

10. Compounds and intermediate [ə] • Brogge-tafel = brogge + tafel ‘breakfast table’: XeW • Sûp-karre = sûpe + karre ‘buttermilk car’: XW • Skoal(le)boek = skoalle + boek ‘school book’: X(e)W 2 Variables: • Similarity with Dutch [Holl] • Optionality of the final schwa X(e)

13. Tendencies • Optionality of the final schwa affects the presence of an intermediate schwa in a compound; • The resemblance with Dutch affects the presence of an intermediate schwa in a compound Additionally from case 1 in this presentation: Resemblance with Dutch influences the optionality of the schwa on the base word (cf. point 1)

14. resemblance [Holl] correlation 0.3 base word: [X(e)] partial correlation 0.19 partial correlation 0.37 compound: [X(e)W]

15. Case 3: the suffixes –heid/-ens • Dutch/Frisian –heid = English –hood ‘brotherhood • Frisian –ens = English –ness goedens – goodness (D. goedheid) wurgens – weariness (D. moeheid)

16. Factors affecting the choicebetween –heid and -ens • Resemblance with Dutch: resemblance >> -heid • Lemma frequency high frequency >> -heid • Metric component more-syllabic >> -heid

17. Resemblance of base words • (nearly) identical words (F) F. frijheid ~ D. vrijheid ‘freedom’ F. wierheid ~ D. waarheid ‘truth’ • Common root, different meaning of formation (FF) F. grutskens ‘pride’~D. grootheid ‘size’ F. waarmens ~ D. warmte ‘warmth’ 3. different lexemes (with same semantics) (N) F. wurgens ~ D. moeheid ‘tiredness’ F. smûkens ~ D. gezelligheid ‘cosiness’

19. The combined impact of frequency and syllable structure for words with a full Dutch cognate

20. Is this recent? early Modern Frisian (18th c.):

21. Conclusions • Cognates in a second language affect words’ morphological behaviour/processing • Semantic vicinity is a prerequisite for being a ‘cognate’ • Frequency is a condition to mobilise the impact of a cognate • The impact can even be observed in partly bilingual communities