Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 10:2 (2015) ► pp.165–185

Regional origin affects the interpretation of linking elements in spoken Dutch compounds

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.
Keywords: pronunciation variation, auditory processing, compounds, regional speech variants, interpretation, plural nouns, linking elements, Dutch
Published online: 11 September 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.10.2.01han
References (34)
Adank, P., and McQueen, J.M. (2007). The effect of an unfamiliar regional accent on word comprehension. In J. Trouvain & W.J. Barry (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th international congress of phonetic sciences (pp. 1925–1928). Dudweiler: Pirrot.Google Scholar
Baayen, R.H., Davidson, D.J., & Bates, D.M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 591, 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R.H., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 371, 94–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Banga, A., Hanssen, E., Schreuder, R., & Neijt, A. (2012). How subtle differences in orthography influence conceptual interpretation. Written Language and Literacy, 15 (2), 185–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Two languages, two sets of interpretations: Language-specific influences of morphological form on Dutch and English speakers’ interpretations of compounds. Cognitive Linguistics, 24 (2), 195–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2003). Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2007). The grammar of words. An introduction to linguistic morphology. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G., & van Santen, A. (1998). Morfologie: De woordstructuur van het Nederlands [Morphology: The word structure of Dutch]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bree, C. van (1985). Onderzoek naar de invloed van standaardtaal op het dialect: Enige methodische overwegingen [Investigation into the effect of standard language on dialect: some methodical considerations]. In J. Taeldeman & H. Dewulf (Eds.), Dialect, standaardtaal en maatschappij (pp. 203–214). Leuven/Amersfoort: Acco.Google Scholar
Drager, K. (2010). Sociophonetic variation in speech perception. Language and Linguistics Compass, 41, 473–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goeman, T. (2001). Morfologische condities op n-behoud en n-deletie in dialecten van Nederland [Morphological conditions on n-preservation and n-deletion of dialects in the Netherlands]. Taal en Tongval themanummer 14: De variabiliteit van de -(ә)n in het Nederlands, 52–88.Google Scholar
Goossens, J. (1987). Schets van de meervoudsvorming der substantieven in de Nederlandse dialecten [Sketch of the formation of the plural of nouns in the Dutch dialects]. Taal en Tongval, 391, 141–173.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M.C. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch Grammar]. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff Uitgevers, and Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Hanssen, E., Banga, A., Neijt, A., & Schreuder, R. (2012). The similarity of plural endings and linking elements in regional speech variants of Dutch. Language and Speech, 55 (3), 437–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanssen, E., Banga, A., Schreuder, R., & Neijt, A. (2013). Semantic and prosodic effects of Dutch linking elements. Morphology, 231, 7–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2014). Regular noun plurals as modifiers in spoken Dutch compounds. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Hanssen, E., Versloot, A., Hoekstra, E., Banga, A., Neijt, A., & Schreuder, R. (2015). Morphological differences in Frisian-Dutch bilinguals: (Dis)similarity of linking elements and plural endings. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5 (3), 357–379.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, E. (1996). Iets over eerste leden van samenstellingen [Something about first members of compounds]. Leuvense bijdragen, 841, 491–504.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P., & Broadbent, D.E. (1957). Information conveyed by vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 291, 98–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neijt, A., Krebbers, L., & Fikkert, P. (2002). Rhythm and semantics in the selection of linking elements. In H. Broekhuis & P. Fikkert (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2002 (pp.117–127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neijt, A., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (2004). Seven years later. The effect of spelling on interpretation. In L. Cornips & J. Doetjes (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2004 (pp.134–145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L.B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–154). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schreuder, R., Neijt, A., van der Weide, F., & Baayen, R.H. (1998). Regular plurals in Dutch compounds: Linking graphemes or morphemes? Language and Cognitive Processes, 131, 551–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schutter, G. de. (2001). Nasaal of sjwa of allebei. De realisaties van het nasale meervoudssuffix bij substantieven in de Nederlandse dialecten [Nasal or schwa or both. The realizations of the nasal plural suffix for nouns in the Dutch dialects]. Taal en Tongval themanummer 14: De variabiliteit van de -(ә)n in het Nederlands, 113–141.Google Scholar
Schutter, G. de, van den Berg, B., Goeman, T., & de Jong, T. (2005). Morfologische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten, deel 1 [Morphological atlas of the Dutch dialects, part 1]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slofstra, B., Hoekstra, E., & Versloot, A.P. (2010). Een voorbeeld van gecamoufleerde taalbeïnvloeding: Samenstellingsvormen van sjwasubstantieven in het Fries [An example of camouflaged language influence: Compound forms of schwa nouns in Frisian]. Taal en Tongval, 21–44.Google Scholar
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 181, 643–662. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toorn, M.C. van den (1982). Tendenzen bij de beregeling van de verbindingsklank in nominale samenstellingen 1–2 [Tendencies for the regulation of the linking element in nominal compounds 1–2]. De nieuwe taalgids, 751, 24–33.Google Scholar
Velde, H. van de, & van Hout, R. (2003). De deletie van de slot-n [The deletion of the final-n]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 81, 93–114.Google Scholar
Weijnen, A.A. (1966). Nederlandse dialectkunde [Dutch dialectology]. Assen: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Willis, C. (1972). Perception of vowel phonemes in Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada, and Buffalo, New York: An application of synthetic vowel categorization tests to dialectology. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 151, 246–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulf, C. de, Goossens, J., & Taeldeman, J. (2005). Fonologische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten. Deel IV. De consonanten [Phonological atlas of the Dutch dialects. Part IV. The consonants]. Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor de Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.Google Scholar
Wulf, C. de, & Taeldeman, J. (2001). Apocope en insertie van -n na sjwa in de zuidelijke Nederlandse dialecten: Conditionering en geografie [Apocope and insertion of -n after schwa in the Southern dialects of the Netherlands: Conditioning and geography]. Taal en Tongval themanummer 14: De variabiliteit van de -(ә)n in het Nederlands, 7–51.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Schäfer, Roland & Elizabeth Pankratz
2018. The plural interpretability of German linking elements. Morphology 28:4 ► pp. 325 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.