Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 5:3 (2015) ► pp.356–378

Morphological variation in the speech of Frisian-Dutch bilinguals

(Dis)similarity of linking suffixes and plural endings

| Centre for Language StudiesRadboud University NijmegenErasmusplein 1NL 6525 HT Nijmegen, The Netherlands |
| Fryske AkademyDoelestrjitte 8NL 8911 DX Leeuwarden, The Netherlands | University of AmsterdamSpuistraat 210NL 1012 VT Amsterdam, The Netherlands |
| Fryske AkademyDoelestrjitte 8NL 8911 DX Leeuwarden, The Netherlands |
| Centre for Language StudiesRadboud University NijmegenErasmusplein 1NL 6525 HT Nijmegen, The Netherlands |
| Centre for Language StudiesRadboud University NijmegenErasmusplein 1NL 6525 HT Nijmegen, The Netherlands |
| Donders Centre for CognitionRadboud University NijmegenGeert Grooteplein Noord 21hp 126NL 6525 EZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands

In standard Dutch, the plural suffix -en is homographic and homophonic with the linking suffix -en (boek+en “books”, boek+en+kast “bookcase”), both being pronounced as schwa. In Frisian, there is neither homography nor homophony (boek+en “books”, pronounced with syllabic nasal; boek+e+kast “bookcase”, pronounced with a linking schwa). Seeing that many areas of Frisian grammar are subject to interference from Dutch, we investigated whether Frisian-Dutch bilinguals exhibit interference from Dutch with respect to the linking suffix during Frisian speech production. Two types of Frisian-Dutch bilinguals emerged: Speakers who had Dutch as their first language tended to maintain the Dutch system of homophony between plural and linking suffixes when speaking Frisian, by using the Frisian plural as a linking morpheme. Speakers who had Frisian as their first language often maintained the Frisian system of no homophony when speaking Frisian. The implications for morphological theories are discussed.

Keywords: bilingualism, speech production, Frisian, Dutch, compounds, linking suffixes
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Goals of this study
    • 1.2Frisian-Dutch bilingualism
    • 1.3Plural suffix and linking suffix
    • 1.4Regular inflection and word formation
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Stimuli and design
    • 2.3Procedure
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Basic results
    • 3.2Phrases versus compounds
    • 3.3Influence of mother tongue
      • 3.3.1Introduction
      • 3.3.2Distribution of individual pronunciation scores
      • 3.3.3Associations of pronunciation types with mother tongue
    • 3.4Geographical contrast
  • 4.General discussion of bilingual speech processing
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Appendix A
  • Appendix B
  • References
Published online: 24 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.3.03han
References
Baayen, R.H., Schreuder, R., de Jong, N.H., & Krott, A
(2002) Dutch inflection: The rules that prove the exception. In S. Nooteboom, F. Weerman, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Storage and computation in the language faculty (pp. 61–92). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banga, A., Hanssen, E., Schreuder, R., & Neijt, A
(2012) How subtle differences in orthography influence conceptual interpretation. Written Language and Literacy, 15(2), 185–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banga, A., Hanssen, E., Neijt, A., & Schreuder, R
(2013) Preference for linking element -en in Dutch noun-noun compounds: Native speakers and second language learners of Dutch. Morphology, 231, 33–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L
(2003) Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPress.Google Scholar
Berent, I., & Pinker, S
(2007) The dislike of regular plurals in compounds: Phonological familiarity or morphological constraint? The Mental Lexicon, 2(2), 129–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.E
(1992) Compounding in Dutch. Rivista di Linguistica, 41, 37–59.Google Scholar
(1993) Against split morphology. In G.E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1993 (pp. 27–49). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2007) The grammar of words. An introduction to linguistic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.E., & van Santen, A
(1998) Morfologie: De woordstructuur van het Nederlands[Morphology: The word structure of Dutch]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bot, K. de
(1992) A bilingual production model: Levelt’s speaking model adapted. Applied linguistics, 13(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) A bilingual’s production model: Levelt’s speaking model adapted. In L. Wei (Ed.), The bilingualism reader (pp. 420–442). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Breuker, P
(1993) Noarmaspekten fan it hjoeddeiske Frysk [Aspects of the standardization of present-day Frisian]. Groningen: Stifting FFYRUG.Google Scholar
Brisard, F., Laarman, E., & Nicoladis, E
(2008) Clausal order and the acquisition of Dutch deverbal compounds. Morphology, 181, 143–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A
(2004) Speech production in bilinguals. In T.K. Bhatia & W.C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 201–223). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
(2005) Lexical access in bilingual production. In J.F. Kroll & A.B.M. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 308–325). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A
(1999) Is lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish-English and English-Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2(3),231–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M
(2004).Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language,501, 491–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I., & Clahsen, H
(2008) The time-course of morphological constraints: A study of plurals inside derived words. The Mental Lexicon, 3(2), 149–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Fryske Taalatlas: Friese taal in beeld
(2011) [The Frisian linguistic atlas: Frisian language in pictures 2011]. A publication from the province Fryslân. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Goeman, T
(2001) Morfologische condities op n-behoud en n-deletie in dialecten van Nederland [Morphological conditions on n-preservation and n-deletion of dialects in the Netherlands]. Taal en Tongval themanummer 14: De variabiliteit van de -(ə)n in het Nederlands, 52–88.Google Scholar
Goossens, J
(1987) Schets van de meervoudsvorming der substantieven in de Nederlandse dialecten [Sketch of the formation of the plural of nouns in the Dutch dialects]. Taal en Tongval, 391, 141–173.Google Scholar
Green, D.W
(1986) Control, activation and resource. Brain and Language, 27(2), 210–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haan, G.J. de, Bloemhoff, H., & Versloot, A.P
(2013) Language varieties in the province of Fryslân. In F. Hinskens & J. Taeldeman (Eds.), Language and space / Dutch: An international handbook on linguistic variation (pp. 721–738). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Haas, W. de, & Trommelen, M
(1993) Morfologisch Handboek van het Nederlands. Een overzicht van de woordvorming [Morphological Handbook of Dutch. An overview of word formation]. ’s-Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
Hanssen, E., Banga, A., Neijt, A., & Schreuder, R
(2012) The similarity of plural endings and linking elements in regional speech variants of Dutch. Language and Speech, 55(3), 437–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanssen, E., Banga, A., Schreuder, R., & Neijt, A
(2013) Semantic and prosodic effects of Dutch linking elements. Morphology, 231, 7–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Regular noun plurals as modifiers in spoken Dutch compounds. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Haskell, T.R., MacDonald, M.C., & Seidenberg, M.S
(2003) Language learning and innateness: Some implications of compounds research . Cognitive Psychology, 471, 119–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., de Bot, K., & Schreuder, R
(1998) Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 213–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, E
(1996) Iets over eerste leden van samenstellingen [Something about first members of compounds]. Leuvense bijdragen, 841, 491–504.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, E., & Slofstra, B
(2008) How majority languages influence minority languages. In T. de Graaf, N. Ostler, & R. Salverda (Eds.), Endangered languages and language learning. Proceedings of FEL XII 24-27 September 2008 (pp. 31–37). Fryske Akademy; Afûk, Ljouwert/Leeuwarden. Retrieved from [URL]
Hoekstra, J
(1998) Fryske Wurdfoarming [Frisian word formation]. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R
(2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P
(1982) Lexical morphology and phonology. In I.S. Yang (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 3–91). Seoul: Hansin.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C
(2002) Thoughts on grammaticalization. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Lieber, R
(2005) English word-formation processes: Observations, issues, and thoughts on future research. In P. Stekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 375–427). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neijt, A., Krebbers, L., & Fikkert, P
(2002) Rhythm and semantics in the selection of linking elements. In H. Broekhuis & P. Fikkert (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2002 (pp. 117–127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neijt, A., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H
(2004) Seven years later. The effect of spelling on interpretation. In L. Cornips & J. Doetjes (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2004 (pp. 134–145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S
(1999) Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Popkema, J
(2006) Grammatica fries. Utrecht/Ljouwert: Het Spectrum/Fryske Akademy.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts, T
(1994) First language use and in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 36–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoonbaert, S., Hartsuiker, R.J., & Pickering, M.J
(2007) The representation of lexical and syntactic information in bilinguals: Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 561, 153–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schreuder, R., Neijt, A., van der Weide, F., & Baayen, R.H
(1998) Regular plurals in Dutch compounds: Linking graphemes or morphemes? Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(5), 551–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schutter, G. de
(2001) Nasaal of sjwa of allebei. De realisaties van het nasale meervoudssuffix bij substantieven in de Nederlandse dialecten. Taal en Tongval themanummer 14: De variabiliteit van de -(ə)n in het Nederlands, 113–141.Google Scholar
Schutter, G. de, van den Berg, B., Goeman, T., & de Jong, T
(2005) Morfologische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten, deel 1 [Morphological atlas of the Dutch dialects, part 1]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M.S., MacDonald, M.C., & Haskell, T.R
(2007) Semantics and phonology constrain compound formation. The Mental Lexicon, 2(3), 287–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sjölin, B
(1976) “Min Frysk”: Een onderzoek naar het ontstaan van transfer en “code-switching” in gesproken Fries [“Bad Frisian”. An investigation into the causes of transfer and “code-switching in spoken Frisian]. Grins: Frysk Ynstitut oan de Ryksuniversiteit to Grins.Google Scholar
Slofstra, B., Hoekstra, E., & Versloot, A.P
(2009) Een voorbeeld van gecamoufleerde taalbeïnvloeding: Samenstellingsvormen van sjwasubstantieven in het Fries [An example of camouflaged language influence: Compound forms of schwa nouns in Frisian]. Taal en Tongval, 611, 21–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Velde, H. van de, & van Hout, R
(2003) De deletie van de slot-n [The deletion of the final-n]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 81, 93–114.Google Scholar
Weijnen, A
(1966) Nederlandse dialectkunde [Dutch dialectology]. Assen: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Wulf, C. de, Goossens, J., & Taeldeman, J
(2005) Fonologische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten. Deel IV. De consonanten [Phonological atlas of the Dutch dialects. Part IV. The consonants]. Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor de Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.Google Scholar
Wulf, C. de, & Taeldeman, J
(2001) Apocope en insertie van -n na sjwa in de zuidelijke Nederlandse dialecten: Conditionering en geografie [Apocope and insertion of -n after schwa in the Southern dialects of the Netherlands: Conditioning and geography]. Taal en Tongval themanummer 14: De variabiliteit van de -(ə)n in het Nederlands, 7–51.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Naismith, Ben & Alan Juffs
2021. Finding the sweet spot: Learners’ productive knowledge of mid-frequency lexical items. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882110204 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 march 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.