- Home
- A-Z Publications
- Taal en Tongval
- Previous Issues
- Volume 72, Issue 2, 2020
Taal en Tongval - Volume 72, Issue 2, 2020
Volume 72, Issue 2, 2020
-
-
Regional variation of HUIS in Achterhoeks
More LessAbstractThis research considers the pronunciation of the Standard Dutch vowel /œy/ in the Achterhoek region, where it is typically realised as a monophthong. Previous studies (eg. Kloeke, 1927; Van Reenen, 2005; 2006; Gerritsen and Jansen, 1979) have shown a variable use of [y] and [u] in this area of the Netherlands. However, this research follows on from previous studies by considering the links between rural and non-rural pronunciation, as well as a geographical split between the north and south of the region. During the summer of 2015, 34 Achterhoeks speakers (aged from 26-73) from different towns in the region were recorded completing a picture task and reading sentences designed to elicit marked dialectal pronunciations. F1 and F2 formant frequencies were analysed in Praat (Boersma and Weenink, 2014) and a formant editor developed by Sóskuthy (2014), and then compared in order to arrive at the results. These were then compared with the findings from a 1979 corpus designed by Leendert van Prooije. A system of classifying Dutch vowels into lexical sets (cf. Wells, 1982) was developed in order to more concisely discuss pronunciation differences; under this system, the vowels in question would fall under what has been termed the HUIS vowel.
The first result is that variations in the position of the vowel following some rhotics were observed in the speakers. Grouped into age, gender, and location, and measured through normalised formant frequencies, it was found that the more retracted vowel [u] was observed in rural speakers, whereas the fronted vowel [y] was seen in speakers from non-rural areas. Where the vowel appeared in any position other than following the rhotic consonant, it was realised as [y], without any observable differences between speakers. However, further analysis of the FAND II corpus revealed that this effect was not always consistent.
In the case of the HUIS vowel, it would appear there is variation based on the status of participants’ locations. The vowel [y] in this area of the Netherlands resulted in a shift from the older [u] of West Germanic dialects (Kloeke, 1927; Van Reenen, 2006), so here the [u] pronunciation after /r/ could be considered a relic of the older dialect of the area. This result was then considered alongside the possibility of a /ru/ isogloss involving more locations within the area of the Achterhoek. Using data from the FAND II database, it was found that there was some evidence for the existence of such an isogloss as a possible alternative explanation.
This study therefore presents the conclusion that, based on the HUIS vowel, the style of speakers residing in the north-eastern part of the Achterhoek is likely to be more representative of the traditional dialect. Further exploration of this conclusion could be set up in other aspects of speech, and thus we can consider the implications for the future of the dialect in the southern and western areas.
-
-
-
Distinctive vowel heights in Limburgish and Bavarian
By Doug HitchAbstractStandard works on linguistics give Amstetten Bavarian (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996) and Weert Limburgish (Ladefoged 2007) as examples of languages with four or five distinctive vowel heights. Other Limburgish and East Central Bavarian dialects are also described with four or five heights. If the reports are correct, these vowel systems have significant typological importance. They would invalidate the neutral vowel theory which proposes that no language will have more than three distinctive heights or depths on any vocalic plane (Hitch 2017). It is proposed that semi-diphthongality and laxness are distinctive features in Limburgish which permit analyses of three distinctive heights. Similarly, it is proposed that laxness is distinctive in the relevant Bavarian dialects and that they have three distinctive heights.
-
-
-
De vrouw in het Friese lexicon
By Henk WolfAbstract1This article discusses the semantic field in Frisian that is covered by the Dutch word vrouw and the German word Frau in the senses of 'woman' and 'wife'. Data are drawn mainly from the Nederlandse Volksverhalenbank, a large online collection of orally transmitted folk tales. The Frisian cognate frou has retained the semantic feature of respectability. This created semantic space for other lexical items, mainly frommes(ke) and minske. These forms were paradigmatically supported by the suppletive plural froulju. Furthermore, discourse pragmatics in Frisian demands for the transmission of more detailed information about the stages of life people are in than is required in Dutch and German. This demand also influences the lexical choices made by Frisian speakers and has led to the lexicalisation of terms for men and women of different age groups. In the sense of 'wife', frou is in competition with wiif.
-
-
-
Twee dertiende-eeuwse Middelnederlandse schepenbrieven van Asse en een mogelijk dertiende-eeuwse Middelnederlandse regeling (supplement) voor de meierij van het Goed te Dikkele van de Gentse Sint-Pietersabdij
More LessAbstractThis contribution is another addition to Maurits Gysseling’s Corpus van Middelnederlandse teksten (tot en met het jaar 1300). Reeks I: Ambtelijke bescheiden. Den Haag, Martinus Nijhoff, 1977.
First it makes available the text of two13th-century Middle-Dutch charters of the court of aldermen of Asse, both kept by the State Archives of Belgium at Louvain (Rijksarchief van België te Leuven) 1.
Secondly it discusses and provides the edition of a possibly13th-century Middle-Dutch addition to the exploitation description of the demesne belonging to the abbey of Sint-Pieters at Ghent in the village of Dikkele (Zwalm, prov. East-Flanders) of the year 1250, kept by the State Archives of Belgium at Ghent (Rijksarchief van België te Gent) 2.
-