Linguistic Gravity Changes in Frisian under the influence of Dutch

1. Linguistic GravityChanges in Frisian under the influence of Dutch Eric Hoekstra Arjen Versloot Fryske Akademy (NL)

2. Frisian……

3. Contemporaneous language contact • Frisian standard … spoken Dutch lexical • gearkomste fergadering vergadering ‘meeting’ • boarterstún speeltún speeltuin ‘play ground’ phonological • noas neus neus ‘nose’ • baarne brâne branden ‘burn’ • keazen koazen gekozen ‘chosen’ semantical & idiomatical • slim = ‘bad’ slim = ‘smart’ slim = ‘smart’ • it is myn jierdei ik bin jierdei ik ben jarig ‘it is my birthday’ etc.etc.

4. 2 case studiesillustrating the impact of Dutch cognates on grammatical ‘behaviour’ of Frisian • The optionality of final [ə] on nouns • The choice between the synonymous suffixes –heid and –ens, corresponding to Dutch -heid

5. 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’)

6. 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’)

7. /ə/-apocope and language contact

9. Case 2: the suffixes –heid/-ens • Dutch/Frisian –heid = English –hood ‘brotherhood • Frisian –ens = English –ness goedens – goodness (D. goedheid) wurgens – weariness (D. moeheid)

10. Factors affecting the choicebetween –heid and -ens • Resemblance with Dutch: resemblance >> -heid • Lemma frequency high frequency >> -heid • Metric component esp. non-final stress >> -heid (not treated in detail)

11. Resemblance of base words • (nearly) identical words (N) F. frijheid ~ D. vrijheid ‘freedom’ (N1) F. wierheid ~ D. waarheid ‘truth’ (N2) • Common root, different meaning or formation (FF) F. grutskens‘pride’~D. grootsheid ‘grandeur’ F. waarmens ~ D. warmte ‘warmth’ 3. different lexemes (with same semantics) (F) F. wurgens ~ D. moeheid ‘tiredness’ F. smûkens ~ D. gezelligheid ‘cosiness’

12. The impact of Dutch cognates and the frequency trigger %-ens

13. Is this recent? early Modern Frisian (18th c.): %-ens

14. Conclusion from the two cases • 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

15. Verbal clusters (I) infinitivepast part. Word order and no IPP: Frisian: Ik hie it sizzekind ‘I could have said it’ “I had it say could” Dutch: Ik had het kunnenzeggen “I had it can say”

16. Verbal clusters (II) infinitivegerund Gerund and infinitive: Frisian: Ik sil komme ‘I will come Ik sjoch him kommen‘I see him arrive’ Dutch: Ik zal komen Ik zie hem komen

17. Factors in morphology applicable in syntax? • Abstract structures have only abstract formal cognates…. • Syntactic structures have no specific semantics comparable to lexical items • Influence is stronger as the semantic similarity is more specific.