This study examined whether providing knowledge about linguistic differences between Dutch and Frisian could improve Dutch speakers' receptive skills in Frisian. 23 Dutch students participated in either an intervention teaching Frisian phonological rules or a control group. Both groups took pre- and post-tests of Frisian text and word comprehension. The intervention did not significantly improve scores over the control. However, the intervention group viewed Frisian as more beautiful after the study. The authors concluded the intervention was not effective for improving receptive multilingualism and discussed factors like language closeness and duration.

1. 15-4-2013 | 1
Does Knowledge About Linguistic
Differences Contribute to Receptive
Multilingualism?
A Pilot Study With Speakers of Dutch Learning Frisian
Fenna Bergsma, Femke Swarte, Renée van Bezooijen ,
Charlotte Gooskens en Wilbert Heeringa

2. Receptive Multilingualism
› Multilingualism in Europe
› English as a lingua franca (Rogerson-Revell, 2007)
› Receptive multilingualism within language families
(Gooskens, 2007)
› Relationship between linguistic distances and
intelligibility

3. A method to improve receptive multilingualism
› Native language as a basis
› Extend lexicon
› Phonologic/orthographic differences
› Morphologic differences

4. Frisian
› West-Frisian
› Used in a province in the north of
the Netherlands
› Official language
• 400.000 speakers
› Bilingual

5. Frisian and Dutch
› Frisian mainly as a spoken
language (Provinsje Fryslân, 2011)
› Differences between Dutch and Frisian
• A lot of cognates, a few non-cognates
• A few differences in word order
› Phonologic differences

6. Participants
› 23 pupils of 11/12 years old on a primary school in
Bussum
• No direct contact with Frisian
• No strong dialect
• In class

7. Research design
› Pretest
› Intervention
• Test group
• Control group
› Posttest

8. Pre- en posttest – Two components
› Test on text level
› Test on word level

9. Pre- en posttest – Text level (1)
› Audio fragment from “Tomke”
• Frisian children’s story
› 10 open questions
• Writing pauses
• Concise answer

10. Pre- en posttest – Text level (2)
› Example
› V: Why does Kornelia say that Romke will not get a
piece of apple pie?
› A: She still has to bake the cake

11. Pre- en posttest – Text level (3)
› Check test on text level
• With 11/12 year old pupils
Check 1 Check 2 Check 3
Groningen Reduzum (Frisia) Nigtevecht
(Utrecht)
Minimal score Maximal score Matching

12. Pre- en posttest – Word level
› Translate 50 separate words
• From 1000 most frequent Frisian words
• Nouns
• No compounds
› Examples
• Fr. gebiet = Du. gebied = Eng. “region”
• Fr. hier = Du. haar = Eng. “hair”

13. Pre- en posttest – Two versions
› Crossed design
Group A Group B Group C Group D
Version 1 Version 1 Version 2 Version 2
Intervention No intervention Intervention No intervention
Version 2 Version 2 Version 1 Version 1

14. Intervention – Phonologic differences (1)
› The 1000 most frequent words from the Korpus
Sprutsen Frysk
• 650.000 words
› Translated to Dutch
› Phonological transcription
FR-word DU-word FR-trans DU-trans
wetter water /wɛtər/ /watər/
goeie goeie /guiə/ /ɣuiə/
dêrom daarom /dɛ:rɔm/ /darɔm/
sizzen zeggen /sɪzn/ /zɛɣən/

15. Intervention – Phonologic differences (2)
› Fr. gebiet = Du. gebied = Eng. “region”
• /g/  /ɣ/
g ə b i ə t
• /ə/  /0/ ɣ ə b i t
› Fr. strân = Du. strand = Eng. “beach”
• /ɔ:n/  /ant/
s t r ɔ: n
s t r a n t

16. Intervention – Phonologic differences (3)
› Most frequent phonologic differences between Frisian
and Dutch
• Changes for more than 50% in another sound
• Most frequent

17. Intervention – Phonologic differences (4)
Difference Frisian Dutch English
1. /f/  /v/ /fɪsk/ /vɪs/ “fish”
2. /g/  /ɣ/ /grup/ /ɣrup/ “group”
3. /u/  /ɔ/ /undər/ /ɔndər/ “under”
4. /ɔ/  /ɑ/ /mɔn/ /mɑn/ “man”
5. /sk/  /sx/ /skɪp/ /sxɪp/ “ship”
6. /r/-insertion /kat/ /kart/ “card”
7. /jə/  /i/ /ɑksjə/ /ɑksi/ “action”
8. /n/, /ŋ/ and /m/ /tɪntn/ /tɛntə/ “tents”
 /ə/ /bukŋ/ /bukə/ “books”
/mɑpm/ /mɑpə/ “maps”

18. Intervention - Plan
› 50 minutes
› Interactive
› Introduction
› 5 rules
› Half time game
› 3 rules
› Final game

19. Intervention – Rules (1)
› Each rule
› Detect rule
• Two examples
› Formulate rule
› Apply rule
• Two examples

20. Intervention – Rules (2)
› Example
› Detect rule
• /gɛk/ = /ɣɛk/
• /grup/ = /ɣrup/
› Rule: the /g/ at the beginning of the word becomes a /ɣ/
› Apply rule
• /gɪps/ = ?
• /grɑp/ = ?

21. Intervention – Games
› Half time game
› Final game
› Mix of rules
› Combinations of rules

22. Questionnaire
› Beforehand and afterwards
› Age
› Language background
› How well do you think you can understand Frisian?
• Everything to nothing
› What do you think of Frisian?
• Very beautiful to very ugly

23. Results – Text level
10
9
8
7
6
5 Pretest
4 Posttest
3
2
1
0
Intervention No intervention

24. Results – Word level
50
45
40
35
30
25 Pretest
20 Posttest
15
10
5
0
Intervention No intervention

25. Results – Word level (only words with rules)
12
10
8
6 Pretest
Posttest
4
2
0
Intervention No intervention

26. Results – Beauty N=23
SE=0.32
5 p=0.087
Beautiful
4
3 Pretest
Posttest
2
Ugly
1
Intervention No intervention

27. Results– Understanding
5
Everything
4
3 Pretest
Posttest
2
Nothing
1
Intervention No intervention
N=12 N=11
SD=1.03 SD=0.95
p=0.058 p=0.045

28. Conclusion
› This intervention was not fit to improve receptive
multilingualism
› Both groups
• Do not perform better on word level
• Do not perform better on text level
• Think they understand more after tests
› Intervention group
• Thinks Frisian is more beautiful after intervention

29. Discussion
› Closeness of languages
› Predictable changes
› Short duration
› Young age
• Other way of learning
• Little motivation

30. References
› Gooskens, C. (2007). The Contribution of Linguistic
Factors to the Intelligibility of Closely Related
Languages. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 28 (6), 445-467.
› Provinsje Fryslan (2011). De Fryske taalatlas 2011.
Fryske taal yn byld. Ljouwert/Leeuwarden. Provinsje
Fryslân.
› Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Using English for
International Business: A European case study.
English for Special Purposes, 26 (1), 103-120.