Linguistic GravityChanges in Frisian under

the influence of Dutch

Eric HoekstraArjen Versloot

Fryske Akademy (NL)

Frisian……

Contemporaneous language contact

• Frisian standard … spoken Dutchlexical• 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.

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

Case I: /ə/-apocope and language contact

Dutch has regular apocope of historical final vowelsFrisian 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’)

Frisian – Dutch cognates

1. (nearly) identical words (Holl++)F. planke ~ D. plank ‘shelf’F. mis(se) ~ D. mis ‘mass’

2. (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’)

/ə/-apocope and language contact

Holl++ Holl+ Holl-

mis(se) bean(e) bûs(e)

74 27 20 121

51 50 65 166

planke brêge sûpe

X(e)/Xe

1,45 0,54 0,31

59% 35% 24%

Case 2: the suffixes –heid/-ens

• Dutch/Frisian –heid = English –hood ‘brotherhood

• Frisian –ens = English –ness goedens – goodness (D. goedheid)wurgens – weariness (D. moeheid)

Factors affecting the choicebetween –heid and -ens

• Resemblance with Dutch:resemblance >> -heid

• Lemma frequencyhigh frequency >> -heid

• Metric componentesp. non-final stress >> -heid(not treated in detail)

Resemblance of base words1. (nearly) identical words (N)

F. frijheid ~ D. vrijheid ‘freedom’ (N1)F. wierheid ~ D. waarheid ‘truth’ (N2)

2. 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’

The impact of Dutch cognates and the frequency trigger

%-ens

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

%-ens

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

Verbal clusters (I)

infinitive past part.

Word order and no IPP:Frisian:Ik hie it sizze kind ‘I could have said it’“I had it say could”Dutch:Ik had het kunnen zeggen“I had it can say”

Verbal clusters (II)

infinitive gerund

Gerund and infinitive:Frisian:Ik sil komme ‘I will comeIk sjoch him kommen ‘I see him arrive’Dutch:Ik zal komenIk zie hem komen

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.