Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:3, pp. 357-379, 2015
In standard Dutch, the plural suffix -en is homographic and homophonic with the linking suffix -e... more 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.
In Dutch, the linking element en in compounds is often homophonous with the regular plural suffix... more In Dutch, the linking element en in compounds is often homophonous with the regular plural suffix -en. Both are pronounced as [ә], [әn] or [ṇ] in different regions of the Netherlands. As a consequence, speakers of standard Dutch may interpret linking en in spoken compounds as a plural marker. The present study investigates whether the regional origin of the participants affects their interpretation of regional speech variants of linking en. In an auditory decision task, speakers from four regions decided if a compound was singular or plural. While all critical compounds required the singular response, reaction times were delayed when the compound contained a linking en: All speech variants of en produced interference for speakers from four regions of the Netherlands. Region North showed the greatest interference compared to the Middle region. Also, region Northeast revealed larger interference effects for linking [ә] and region South for linking [ṇ]. We conclude that a speaker’s regional origin affects interpretation.
The plural suffix -en (noot+en, 'nuts&... more The plural suffix -en (noot+en, 'nuts') is pronounced differently by speakers coming from different regions of the Netherlands. In this study, we compared the pronunciation of the plural suffix -en in phrases (noot+en kraken, 'to crack nuts') with linking en in compounds (noot+en+kroker, 'nutcracker'), because some claim that both are similar (Schreuder, Neijt, van der Weide, & Baayen, 1998), whereas others claim that they are not (Verkuyl, 2007). The pronunciations of 109 participants coming from five regions of the Netherlands were therefore compared in a picture naming task. A systematic relation between the pronunciations of plural -en and linking en was detected: Speakers from the Northern and Eastern regions produced [(upside-down e)n] most often for both the linking elements and plural endings, while speakers from the Middle and Western regions produced [upside-down e] most often for both. For speakers from the Southern region, we found no preference to pronounce either [upside-down e] or [upside-down e n] in compounds or phrases. It is concluded that Dutch speakers often do not distinguish plural -en from linking en in their speech production. Possibly, speakers of Dutch consider linking en and plural -en as the same morpheme.
ABSTRACT The present study investigates linguistic relativity. The units of writing investigated ... more ABSTRACT The present study investigates linguistic relativity. The units of writing investigated are e and en, which are used to represent units of language in Dutch, Frisian, and Afrikaans. Dutch has homographic forms in the plural suffix -en and the linking element of noun-noun compounds en. Frisian does not have homography of this kind, while Afrikaans has a different homography. This raises the question whether second language learners of Dutch consistently interpret the linking en in Dutch noun-noun compounds as plural in the way that native speakers do. Plurality ratings for Dutch modifiers obtained from native Dutch speakers are compared with ratings from Frisian-Dutch bilinguals and Afrikaaners learning Dutch as L2. Significant differences relating to orthography are observed. We therefore argue that differing orthographic conventions in one’s native language (L1) can lead to different interpretations for the same everyday words written in Dutch (L2). Orthography thus provides an example of linguistic relativity. Keywords: linguistic relativity; second language learning; morphology; compounding; linking element; plurality; homography; Dutch; Frisian; Afrikaans
ABSTRACT The studies presented here investigate the contribution of linking -en- and rhythm to a ... more ABSTRACT The studies presented here investigate the contribution of linking -en- and rhythm to a compound’s conceptual plurality. Participants were asked to estimate the conceptual plurality of the modifier constituents of Dutch compounds. In the first study, pseudo-compounds (compounds composed of pseudo-words, burb+en+tijpis) and novel compounds (novel combinations of existing nouns, aap+en+leraar, ‘monkey teacher’) with linking -en- were investigated. In study two, we examined written existing compounds that occur with and without -en- (bloem+bak or bloem+en+bak, ‘flower box’) and present a stress clash or not at the constituent boundaries. Finally, study three investigated the same question as study two for spoken existing compounds. The results reveal that existing compounds written or spoken with linking -en- are considered to bear more plural meaning than the ones without linking element. Furthermore, an effect of rhythm on plurality was observed in pseudo-compounds and in spoken existing compounds. When these compounds contain linking -en- to prevent a stress clash, they are considered to bear less plural meaning than those with linking -en- in a neutral context. These studies demonstrate that rhythm can affect the interpretation of linking elements. The fact that we only find a rhythmic effect in pseudo-compounds and spoken existing compounds but not in written existing compounds is explained in terms of processing.
The plural suffix -en (noot+en, 'nuts&... more The plural suffix -en (noot+en, 'nuts') is pronounced differently by speakers coming from different regions of the Netherlands. In this study, we compared the pronunciation of the plural suffix -en in phrases (noot+en kraken, 'to crack nuts') with linking en in compounds (noot+en+kroker, 'nutcracker'), because some claim that both are similar (Schreuder, Neijt, van der Weide, & Baayen, 1998), whereas others claim that they are not (Verkuyl, 2007). The pronunciations of 109 participants coming from five regions of the Netherlands were therefore compared in a picture naming task. A systematic relation between the pronunciations of plural -en and linking en was detected: Speakers from the Northern and Eastern regions produced [(upside-down e)n] most often for both the linking elements and plural endings, while speakers from the Middle and Western regions produced [upside-down e] most often for both. For speakers from the Southern region, we found no preference to pronounce either [upside-down e] or [upside-down e n] in compounds or phrases. It is concluded that Dutch speakers often do not distinguish plural -en from linking en in their speech production. Possibly, speakers of Dutch consider linking en and plural -en as the same morpheme.
ABSTRACT The present study investigates linguistic relativity. Do form differences between Dutch ... more ABSTRACT The present study investigates linguistic relativity. Do form differences between Dutch and English influence the interpretations which speakers have? The Dutch element en in noun-noun compounds, for example in aardbeienjam ‘strawberry jam’ is homophonous and homographic with the regular plural suffix -en. English, in contrast, has no such typical linking elements in compounds. We therefore investigated the interpretation of Dutch modifiers in compounds and their English equivalents. We compared the plurality ratings of Dutch modifiers with and without the linking element en by native Dutch speakers, and the plurality ratings of English modifiers by native Dutch speakers and native English speakers. If the Dutch linking en induces plural meaning, we expected a difference between the plurality ratings by English speakers for English modifiers and by Dutch speakers for Dutch modifiers, such that the estimation of the number of strawberries in strawberry jam is lower for the English speakers than the number of aardbeien in aardbeienjam for the Dutch speakers. This is exactly what we found. Moreover, when native Dutch speakers rate the English equivalents, their interpretation of strawberry jam is the same as for native English speakers, which shows the language being used to influence semantic interpretations.
ABSTRACT The present study investigates the relation between conceptual plurality and the occurre... more ABSTRACT The present study investigates the relation between conceptual plurality and the occurrence of a plural morpheme in novel Dutch and English noun-noun compounds. Using a picture-naming task, we compared the naming responses of native Dutch speakers and native English speakers to pictures depicting either one or multiple instances of the same object serving as a possible modifier in a novel noun-noun compound. While the speakers of both languages most frequently produced novel compounds containing a singular modifier, they also used compounds containing a plural modifier and did this more often to describe a picture with several instances of an object than to describe a picture with one instance of the object. Speakers of English incorporated some regular plurals into the noun-noun compounds they produced. These results contradict the words-and-rules theory of Pinker (1999) and also the semantic constraints for compounding put forth by Alegre and Gordon (1996). Interestingly, it appears, however, that the acceptability constraints put forth by Haskell, MacDonald, and Seidenberg (2003) apply to the production of compounds.
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:3, pp. 357-379, 2015
In standard Dutch, the plural suffix -en is homographic and homophonic with the linking suffix -e... more 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.
In Dutch, the linking element en in compounds is often homophonous with the regular plural suffix... more In Dutch, the linking element en in compounds is often homophonous with the regular plural suffix -en. Both are pronounced as [ә], [әn] or [ṇ] in different regions of the Netherlands. As a consequence, speakers of standard Dutch may interpret linking en in spoken compounds as a plural marker. The present study investigates whether the regional origin of the participants affects their interpretation of regional speech variants of linking en. In an auditory decision task, speakers from four regions decided if a compound was singular or plural. While all critical compounds required the singular response, reaction times were delayed when the compound contained a linking en: All speech variants of en produced interference for speakers from four regions of the Netherlands. Region North showed the greatest interference compared to the Middle region. Also, region Northeast revealed larger interference effects for linking [ә] and region South for linking [ṇ]. We conclude that a speaker’s regional origin affects interpretation.
The plural suffix -en (noot+en, 'nuts&... more The plural suffix -en (noot+en, 'nuts') is pronounced differently by speakers coming from different regions of the Netherlands. In this study, we compared the pronunciation of the plural suffix -en in phrases (noot+en kraken, 'to crack nuts') with linking en in compounds (noot+en+kroker, 'nutcracker'), because some claim that both are similar (Schreuder, Neijt, van der Weide, & Baayen, 1998), whereas others claim that they are not (Verkuyl, 2007). The pronunciations of 109 participants coming from five regions of the Netherlands were therefore compared in a picture naming task. A systematic relation between the pronunciations of plural -en and linking en was detected: Speakers from the Northern and Eastern regions produced [(upside-down e)n] most often for both the linking elements and plural endings, while speakers from the Middle and Western regions produced [upside-down e] most often for both. For speakers from the Southern region, we found no preference to pronounce either [upside-down e] or [upside-down e n] in compounds or phrases. It is concluded that Dutch speakers often do not distinguish plural -en from linking en in their speech production. Possibly, speakers of Dutch consider linking en and plural -en as the same morpheme.
ABSTRACT The present study investigates linguistic relativity. The units of writing investigated ... more ABSTRACT The present study investigates linguistic relativity. The units of writing investigated are e and en, which are used to represent units of language in Dutch, Frisian, and Afrikaans. Dutch has homographic forms in the plural suffix -en and the linking element of noun-noun compounds en. Frisian does not have homography of this kind, while Afrikaans has a different homography. This raises the question whether second language learners of Dutch consistently interpret the linking en in Dutch noun-noun compounds as plural in the way that native speakers do. Plurality ratings for Dutch modifiers obtained from native Dutch speakers are compared with ratings from Frisian-Dutch bilinguals and Afrikaaners learning Dutch as L2. Significant differences relating to orthography are observed. We therefore argue that differing orthographic conventions in one’s native language (L1) can lead to different interpretations for the same everyday words written in Dutch (L2). Orthography thus provides an example of linguistic relativity. Keywords: linguistic relativity; second language learning; morphology; compounding; linking element; plurality; homography; Dutch; Frisian; Afrikaans
ABSTRACT The studies presented here investigate the contribution of linking -en- and rhythm to a ... more ABSTRACT The studies presented here investigate the contribution of linking -en- and rhythm to a compound’s conceptual plurality. Participants were asked to estimate the conceptual plurality of the modifier constituents of Dutch compounds. In the first study, pseudo-compounds (compounds composed of pseudo-words, burb+en+tijpis) and novel compounds (novel combinations of existing nouns, aap+en+leraar, ‘monkey teacher’) with linking -en- were investigated. In study two, we examined written existing compounds that occur with and without -en- (bloem+bak or bloem+en+bak, ‘flower box’) and present a stress clash or not at the constituent boundaries. Finally, study three investigated the same question as study two for spoken existing compounds. The results reveal that existing compounds written or spoken with linking -en- are considered to bear more plural meaning than the ones without linking element. Furthermore, an effect of rhythm on plurality was observed in pseudo-compounds and in spoken existing compounds. When these compounds contain linking -en- to prevent a stress clash, they are considered to bear less plural meaning than those with linking -en- in a neutral context. These studies demonstrate that rhythm can affect the interpretation of linking elements. The fact that we only find a rhythmic effect in pseudo-compounds and spoken existing compounds but not in written existing compounds is explained in terms of processing.
The plural suffix -en (noot+en, 'nuts&... more The plural suffix -en (noot+en, 'nuts') is pronounced differently by speakers coming from different regions of the Netherlands. In this study, we compared the pronunciation of the plural suffix -en in phrases (noot+en kraken, 'to crack nuts') with linking en in compounds (noot+en+kroker, 'nutcracker'), because some claim that both are similar (Schreuder, Neijt, van der Weide, & Baayen, 1998), whereas others claim that they are not (Verkuyl, 2007). The pronunciations of 109 participants coming from five regions of the Netherlands were therefore compared in a picture naming task. A systematic relation between the pronunciations of plural -en and linking en was detected: Speakers from the Northern and Eastern regions produced [(upside-down e)n] most often for both the linking elements and plural endings, while speakers from the Middle and Western regions produced [upside-down e] most often for both. For speakers from the Southern region, we found no preference to pronounce either [upside-down e] or [upside-down e n] in compounds or phrases. It is concluded that Dutch speakers often do not distinguish plural -en from linking en in their speech production. Possibly, speakers of Dutch consider linking en and plural -en as the same morpheme.
ABSTRACT The present study investigates linguistic relativity. Do form differences between Dutch ... more ABSTRACT The present study investigates linguistic relativity. Do form differences between Dutch and English influence the interpretations which speakers have? The Dutch element en in noun-noun compounds, for example in aardbeienjam ‘strawberry jam’ is homophonous and homographic with the regular plural suffix -en. English, in contrast, has no such typical linking elements in compounds. We therefore investigated the interpretation of Dutch modifiers in compounds and their English equivalents. We compared the plurality ratings of Dutch modifiers with and without the linking element en by native Dutch speakers, and the plurality ratings of English modifiers by native Dutch speakers and native English speakers. If the Dutch linking en induces plural meaning, we expected a difference between the plurality ratings by English speakers for English modifiers and by Dutch speakers for Dutch modifiers, such that the estimation of the number of strawberries in strawberry jam is lower for the English speakers than the number of aardbeien in aardbeienjam for the Dutch speakers. This is exactly what we found. Moreover, when native Dutch speakers rate the English equivalents, their interpretation of strawberry jam is the same as for native English speakers, which shows the language being used to influence semantic interpretations.
ABSTRACT The present study investigates the relation between conceptual plurality and the occurre... more ABSTRACT The present study investigates the relation between conceptual plurality and the occurrence of a plural morpheme in novel Dutch and English noun-noun compounds. Using a picture-naming task, we compared the naming responses of native Dutch speakers and native English speakers to pictures depicting either one or multiple instances of the same object serving as a possible modifier in a novel noun-noun compound. While the speakers of both languages most frequently produced novel compounds containing a singular modifier, they also used compounds containing a plural modifier and did this more often to describe a picture with several instances of an object than to describe a picture with one instance of the object. Speakers of English incorporated some regular plurals into the noun-noun compounds they produced. These results contradict the words-and-rules theory of Pinker (1999) and also the semantic constraints for compounding put forth by Alegre and Gordon (1996). Interestingly, it appears, however, that the acceptability constraints put forth by Haskell, MacDonald, and Seidenberg (2003) apply to the production of compounds.
Uploads