1. 15-4-2013 | 1Does Knowledge About LinguisticDifferences Contribute to ReceptiveMultilingualism?A Pilot Study With Speakers of Dutch Learning Frisian Fenna Bergsma, Femke Swarte, Rene 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 Frysln, 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 childrens 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 designGroup A Group B Group C Group DVersion 1 Version 1 Version 2 Version 2Intervention No intervention Intervention No interventionVersion 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 /wtr/ /watr/ goeie goeie /gui/ /ui/ drom daarom /d:rm/ /darm/ sizzen zeggen /szn/ /zn/

15. Intervention Phonologic differences (2) Fr. gebiet = Du. gebied = Eng. region /g/ // g b i t // /0/ b i t Fr. strn = Du. strand = Eng. beach /:n/ /ant/ s t r : 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 English1. /f/ /v/ /fsk/ /vs/ fish2. /g/ // /grup/ /rup/ group3. /u/ // /undr/ /ndr/ under4. // // /mn/ /mn/ man5. /sk/ /sx/ /skp/ /sxp/ ship6. /r/-insertion /kat/ /kart/ card7. /j/ /i/ /ksj/ /ksi/ action8. /n/, // and /m/ /tntn/ /tnt/ tents // /buk/ /buk/ books /mpm/ /mp/ 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 /gk/ = /k/ /grup/ = /rup/ Rule: the /g/ at the beginning of the word becomes a // Apply rule /gps/ = ? /grp/ = ?

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 level10 9 8 7 6 5 Pretest 4 Posttest 3 2 1 0 Intervention No intervention

24. Results Word level504540353025 Pretest20 Posttest1510 5 0 Intervention No intervention

25. Results Word level (only words with rules)1210 8 6 Pretest Posttest 4 2 0 Intervention No intervention

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

27. Results Understanding 5Everything 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 Frysln. Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Using English for International Business: A European case study. English for Special Purposes, 26 (1), 103-120.