Cover not available
Part of
From West to North Frisia: A Journey along the North Sea Coast
Edited by Alastair Walker, Eric Hoekstra, Goffe Jensma, Wendy Vanselow, Willem Visser and Christoph Winter
[NOWELE Supplement Series 33] 2022
► pp. 409–422

The closed vowels in West Frisian revisited

On the mismatch between phonetic duration and phonological length

| Fryske Akademy | University of Groningen
In most of the literature on West Frisian, it is assumed that this language has a symmetrical vowel system, consisting of nine short and nine corresponding long vowels. These vowels all occur in minimal pairs, meaning that this distinction has phonemic value. This traditional view was challenged in De Haan (1999), where an asymmetrical classification is proposed in which the closed vowels /i/, /y/ and /u/, in spite of their short duration, are considered to be long vowels. In this paper, I want to assess the pros and cons of this asymmetrical classification, add some new arguments in favour of it, and come up with a representation of /i/, /y/ and /u/ which captures both their phonological length and phonetic duration.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.In support of the asymmetrical classification
    • 2.1Arguments pertaining to the distribution of vowels in the phonological word
    • 2.2Phonotactic arguments
    • 2.3A diachronic argument
  • 3.Exceptions
  • 4.The phonological representation of the closed vowels
  • 5.The representation of diphthongs
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 10 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nss.33.23vis
References (14)
References
Booij, G. E. 1995. The phonology of Dutch, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. et al. 1959. Fonologie van het Nederlands en het Fries, ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilbers, D. G., W. Visser & J. Weening. 2012. Het verschil tussen de lange en korte hoge vocalen in het Fries en de invloed hiervan op de realisering van de Nederlandse hoge vocalen door Friestaligen. Us Wurk, 61. 69–90.Google Scholar
Graaf, T. de. 1985. Phonetic aspects of the Frisian vowel system. NOWELE 5. 23–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haan, G. de. 1999. Frisian monophthongs and syllable structure. Us Wurk 48. 19–30; also published in: J. Hoekstra, W. Visser & G. Jensma (eds.). 2010, Studies in West Frisian Grammar, Selected papers by Germen J. de Haan (= Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 161), 331–340. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J. 1995. Ta it stamlûd fan Nijfrysk húnje/hune. Tydskrift foar Fryske Taalkunde 10. 12–15.Google Scholar
Knevel, N. & D. G. Gilbers. 2005. Hoge vocalen en het diminutiefsuffix in het Nederlands. TABU 34. 159–170.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. 1993. A course in phonetics (third edition). Fort Worth.Google Scholar
Language Portal Dutch/Frisian/Afrikaans. [URL]
Lass, R. 1984. Phonology. An introduction to basic concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van. 1995. Vowel quality and phonological projection (doctoral dissertation, University of Tilburg); also published as: Oostendorp, M. van. 2000. Phonological projection. A theory of feature content and prosodic structure. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Trommelen, M. & W. Zonneveld. 1982. Inleiding in de generatieve fonologie. Muiderberg: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Visser, W. 1997. The Syllable in Frisian (doctoral dissertation, Free University, Amsterdam).
2003. Lange en koarte ienlûden yn it Frysk: in reaksje op De Haan (1999). Us Wurk 52. 130–154.Google Scholar