Linguistic Gravity Changes in Frisian under the influence of Dutch
description
Transcript of Linguistic Gravity Changes in Frisian under the influence of Dutch
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.