How much do students of Dutch as a second language know about the marked status of Dutch loan phonemes?

Vol.29,No.2(2015)

Roland Nagy

Stable URL (handle):
http://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/134987

PDF (German)
Abstract
It is well-known that borrowed words are often recognisable for native speakers due to certain non-native characteristics. Loan phonemes may also function as such nonnativeness markers, which means that native speakers are aware of the peripheral status of these segments within the native phonology. In this survey, I examined the perception of six Dutch loan consonants ([g], [ɲ], [ʃ], [ʒ], [tʃ], [dʒ]) by Dutch native-speakers and Hungarian second language learners. I argued that, similarly to native speakers, second language learners were able to perceive the marginal status of Dutch loan phonemes, and that this competence would show a certain development during the course of their study. I conducted a magnitude estimation experiment with 52 Hungarian university students of Dutch, 27 native speakers of Dutch and 11 non-Dutch speaking Hungarians. In the survey, participants had to listen to 21 minimal pairs of Dutch pseudo-words, and had to assess the "Dutchness" of each pseudoword relative to its minimal pair. As one word in each minimal pair contained a loan phoneme, it had been expected that these would be judged "less Dutch" than their counterparts. The first part of the hypothesis was justified by the data. The correlation between the results of the group of Hungarian second language learners and the group of Dutch native speaker was higher than that between the students and the non-Dutch speaking Hungarians. However, there was no clear relationship found between the length of language study and nativelike performance. Further longitudinal experiment is needed to support this part of the hypothesis.

Keywords:
loanwords; loan phonemes; Dutch phonology; second language acquisition; phonological acquisition; magnitude estimation

Pages:
91–107
References

BARD, ELLEN GURMAN.; DAN ROBERTSON.; en ANTONELLA SORACE. (1996): Magnitude Estimation of Linguistic Acceptability. Language 72. 32–68.

BATTISTELLA, EDWIN L. (1996): The Logic of Markedness. New York: Oxford University Press.

BOOIJ, GEERT E. (1995): The Phonology of Dutch. The phonology of the world's languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

BYBEE, JOAN L. (2007): Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DUNBAR, EWAN.; en WILLIAM IDSARDI. (2012): The Acquisition of Phonological Inventories. Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics, ed. by J. Lidz, W. Snyder, en Joe Pater. to appear. Oxord: Oxford University Press.

EIJKMAN, L.P.H. (1955): Phonetiek van het Nederlands. 2e dr. herzien en bezorgd door M. Knoop. Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn N.V.

GÓSY, MÁRIA. (2004): Fonetika, a beszéd tudománya. Budapest: Osiris.

GROOT, A.W. DE. (1931): De wetten der phonologie en hun betekenis voor de studie van het Nederlands. De Nieuwe Taalgids 25.225–243.

HERSCHENSOHN, JULIA ROGERS, en MARTHA YOUNG-SCHOLTEN (eds.) (2013): The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition. Cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

HEYDARI, POONEH.; en MOHAMMAD S. BAGHERI. (2012): Error Analysis: Sources of L2 Learners' Errors. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.8.1583-1589. http://ojs.academypublisher.com/index.php/tpls/article/view/7763. | DOI 10.4304/tpls.2.8.1583-1589

HYMAN, LARRY M. (2008): Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25. doi:10.1515/TLIR.2008.003. http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/tlir.2008.25.issue-1-2/tlir.2008.003/tlir.2008.003.xml. | DOI 10.1515/TLIR.2008.003

KEULEERS, EMMANUEL.; en MARC BRYSBAERT. (2010): Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods 42. 627–633. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.627. | DOI 10.3758/BRM.42.3.627

KRUG, MANFRED.; en JULIA SCHLÜTER. (2013): Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge University Press.

LUYCKX, KIM.; HANNE KLOOTS.; EVIE COUSSÉ.; en STEVEN GILLIS. (2007): Klankfrequenties in het Nederlands. Tussen taal, spelling en onderwijs. Essays bij het emeritaat van Frans Daems, ed. by Dominiek Sandra, Rita Rymenans, Pol Cuvelier, en Peter Van Petegem, 141–154. Gent: Academia Press.

NAGY, ROLAND. (2008): Leenfonemen: lastige nieuwkomers?, 141–165. Praagse perspectieven 5. Praag: Universitaire Pers.

NAGY, ROLAND. (2012): Leenfonemen: ouderdom en inburgering. Korte geschiedenis van de inburgering van de [ʃ] en de [ʒ] in het Nederlands. n/f 2012. 79–110.

SCHÜTZE, CARSON T. (1996): The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

VAN BEZOOIJEN, RENÉE.; CHARLOTTE GOOSKENS.; en SEBASTIAN KÜRSCHNER. (2009): Wat weet de Nederlander van de herkomst van Nederlandse woorden? Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 125. 324–344.

VAN COETSEM, FRANS. (1988): Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact. Publications in language sciences. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.

VAN DER SIJS, NICOLINE. (1996): Leenwoordenboek: De invloed van andere talen op het Nederlands. 2e druk. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.

VAN PATTEN, BILL.; en ALESSANDRO G. BENATI. (2010): Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. London/New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Metrics

14

Views

0

PDF (German) views

PDF (German)