Article published in:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 3:1 (2014) ► pp. 45–61

Does instruction about phonological correspondences contribute to the intelligibility of a related language?

A study with speakers of Dutch learning Frisian

| University of Groningen

This paper investigates whether instruction about phonological correspondences between the native and a closely related language contributes to the intelligibility of this closely related language. Previous research has shown that closely related languages can be mutually intelligible to a certain degree (cf. Gooskens, 2007). Little is known about methods for improving the intelligibility of a closely related language. In this paper we focus on improving the intelligibility of spoken Frisian for Dutch speakers. In a 50-minute instruction session, participants got information about the most frequent sound correspondences between Dutch and Frisian, e.g. /sk/ in Frisian is often /sx/ in Dutch. The results of the intelligibility test show no significant improvement, neither at the text level, nor at the word level. Further research could focus on other language combinations, but also on a longer time span of intervention and other linguistic factors, such as unknown vowels.

Keywords: receptive multilingualism, mutual intelligibility, Frisian, Dutch, language planning, second language learning, intervention methods, Levenshtein algorithm
Published online: 23 June 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.3.1.03ber
References
Bezooijen, R. van, & Gooskens, C. (
2005) How easy is it for speakers of Dutch to understand spoken and written Frisian and Afrikaans, and why? In J. Doetjes, & J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands (pp. 13–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (
Ed.) (2001) Form-focused instruction and second language learning. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
European Commission. (
2006) Europeans and their languages, the starting point. Retrieved from http://​ec​.europa​.eu​/public​_opinion​/archives​/ebs​/ebs​_243​_sum​_en​.pdf
2013) Official EU languages. Retrieved on 16 January 2013, from http://​ec​.europa​.eu​/languages​/languages​-of​-europe​/eu​-languages​_en​.htm
Fryske Akademy. (
2013) Korpus Sprutsen Frysk, data description. Retrieved on 19 April 2013, from http://​www1​.fa​.knaw​.nl​/ksf​.html
Gooskens, C. (
2007) The contribution of linguistic factors to the intelligibility of closely related languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 28(6), 445–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011) Mutual intelligibility of closely related languages in Europe: Linguistic and non-linguistic determinants. Retreived from http://​www​.let​.rug​.nl​/gooskens​/project​/pdf​/Gooskens​_Vrije​_Competitie​.pdf
Hedquist, R. (
1985) Nederländares förståelse av danka och svenska. Umeå: Institutionerna för fonetik och nordiska språk, Umeå Universitet.Google Scholar
Luce, P.A., & Pisoni, D.B. (
1998) Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 191, 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lutje Spelberg, H.C., & Postma, B. (
1995) Taalattitudes in een tweetalige situatie. It Beaken: Tydskrift Fan De Fryske Akademy, 57(1), 30–43.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, J., & Heeringa, W. (
2010) Measuring dialect differences. In P. Auer, & J.E. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and space. An international handbook of linguistic variation. Volume 1: Theories and methods (pp. 550–567). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L. (
2001) Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form-focused instruction and second language learning (pp. 157–213). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Provinsje Fryslân. (
2011) De Fryske taalatlas 2011. Fryske taal yn byld. Ljouwert/Leeuwarden: Provinsje Fryslân.Google Scholar
Rogerson-Revell, P. (
2007) Using English for international business: A European case study. English for Special Purposes, 26(1), 103–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schüppert, A., & Gooskens, C. (
2011) The role of extra-linguistic factors for receptive bilingualism: Evidence from Danish and Swedisch pre-schoolers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(3), 332–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spoelstra, J., Post, J., & Hut, A. (
2007) Prisma woordenboek Fries: Fries-Nederlands, Nederlands-Fries. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.Google Scholar
Swarte, F., Hilton, N.H., & Klinkenberg, E. (
2011) Language attitudes of adults living in Friesland towards the Frisian language. Retrieved from http://​scripties​.let​.eldoc​.ub​.rug​.nl​/FILES​/root​/Master​/ResearchMaster​/Linguistics​/2011​/SwarteF​.H​.E​/ReMa1613855FHESwarte​.pdf
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Belmar, Guillem & Sara Pinho
2020. ‘Kinsto it Frysk ferstean?’. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 9:1-2 ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Darquennes, Jeroen
2015. Language Awareness and Minority Languages. In Language Awareness and Multilingualism, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Darquennes, Jeroen
2017. Language Awareness and Minority Languages. In Language Awareness and Multilingualism, ► pp. 297 ff. DOI logo
Hicks, Nina Selina
2021. Exploring systematic orthographic crosslinguistic similarities to enhance foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882110473 ff. DOI logo
Vanhove, Jan
2016. The early learning of interlingual correspondence rules in receptive multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism 20:5 ► pp. 580 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 january 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.