Debunking myths? Intelligibility of Frisian for Dutch native speakers Guillem Belmar Viernes & Sara Pinho Ø On average, people scored 85% in the reading exercises, 73% in the listening exercises and were able to complete 80% of the translation tasks. References: Belmar, G. (2018). New speakers of a minoritized language: motivation, attitudes and language use of ‘nije sprekkers’ of West Frisian. MA Thesis, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Belmar, G., Eikens, N., de Jong, D., Miedema, W., & Pinho, S. (2018). The paradoxes of being a new speaker of Frisian: Understanding Motivation, Authority and Legitimacy in Fryslân. Paper presented at the Conference ‘Contested Languages of the Old World 3’ at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. De Vries, T. (2010). De fersteanberens fan it Frysk foar dialektsprekkers. Us Wurk. Tydskrift foar Frisistyk / Journal of Frisian Studies, 59(3-4), 132-157. Gorter, D., & Jonkman, R. (1995). Taal yn Fryslân op ‘e nij besjoen. Leeuwarden/Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Hilton, N., & Gooskens, C. (2013). Language policies and attitudes towards Frisian in the Netherlands. In C. Gooskens, & R. van Bezooijen (Eds.), Phonetics in Europe: Perception and Production (pp. 139-157). Frankfurt am Main: P.I.E. – Peter Lang. Nerbonne, J. (2001). Change, Convergence and Divergence among Dutch and Frisian. In Philologia Frisica anno 1999 (pp. 88-109). Leeuwarden/Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Nota, A., Coler, M., & Hilton, N. (2015). Language contact and intonation patterns: The case of Frisian and Dutch. Paper presented at the ICLaVE 8 Conference, in Leipzig. Provinsje Fryslân (2015). De Fryske taalatlas 2015. Fryske taal yn byld. Leeuwarden/Ljouwert: Provinsje Fryslân. Wolf, H. (2013, October 11). Wat makket it út oft it Frysk útsjert? Retrieved April 20, 2018 from: http ://www.demoanne.nl/makket-it-no-ut-oft-it-frysk-utsjert/ Ytsma, J. (1995). Frisian as a first and second language. Leeuwarden/Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Ytsma, J. (2007). Language use and attitudes in Fryslân. In D. Lasagabaster, & A. Huguet (Eds.), Multilingualism in European bilingual contexts (pp. 144-164). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dus oftsto Frysk praatst, Stedfrysk, Nedersaksysk, Biltsk of Nederlânsk, brûk de taal fan dyn foarkar, de taal dêr’tst dy it noflikst by fielst, dyn memmetaal… just speak it and let the others use the language they choose. Ø On average, participants born in Belgium (M=71.53, SD=12.19) had significantly lower results than those born in the Netherlands (M=81.96, SD=12.64). Ø On average, participants who speak a dialect performed better, but the difference failed to reach significance (M=81.37, SD=13.16 for participants born in the Netherlands who do not speak a dialect; M=83.39, SD=11.25 for those who speak a dialect. M=68.79, SD=14.72 for participants born in Belgium who do not speak a dialect; M=73.90, SD=9.21 for those who speak a dialect). Figure 2: Reading Exercises Difficulty Rating and scores (tau=-0.3) Figure 3: Translation Exercises Difficulty Rating and scores (tau=-0.4) Figure 4: Listening Exercises Difficulty Rating and scores (tau=-0.2) Ø For all three types of exercises, correlation analyses showed that the higher a participant rated the the difficulty of the task, the lower they performed. However, It has been claimed that Frisian is converging with Standard Dutch (cf. Nerbonne, 2011, Nota et al., 2015) Previous studies have found a high degree of intelligibility for speakers of regional dialects in the Netherlands (cf. De Vries, 2010). According to the Provinsje Fryslân, 95% of the inhabitants of Fryslân claim to understand Frisian to some extent (‘very good’, ‘good’ or ‘pretty comfortably’) (Provinsje Fryslân, 2015). Ø In all three types of exercises, the average scores are quite high, which seems to mean that the intelligibility of Frisian for Dutch native speakers should be quite high. Ø Participants born in the Netherlands seem to understand more Frisian than those born in Flanders. Ø The results seem to suggest that speaking or not a dialect does not have an impact on the understanding of Frisian. Ø The results also show a correlation between the perceived difficulty of the tasks in Frisian and the scores in this intelligibility test. This correlation indicates that after facing with specific tasks, participants could quite accurately assess their performance. Ø Twatalige konversaasjes as the key to promote the use of Frisian. Dutch speakers in Fryslân often claim that Frisian is a difficult language (Belmar, 2018). This, in turn, hinders the maintenance of Frisian and the development of a ‘really’ bilingual province = speaking Frisian to somebody who is speaking Dutch is seen as rude (cf. Wolf, 2013; Belmar et al., 2018) The general negative attitude towards the Frisian language, even among native speakers themselves (cf. Ytsma, 1995; Gorter & Jonkman, 1995; Hilton & Gooskens, 2013), has reportedly had a negative effect on the use of the language, especially in the city of Ljouwert/Leeuwarden (Belmar et al., 2018) Ø How much Frisian do Dutch native speakers understand? Ø Do people from the Netherlands understand more Frisian than those from Flanders? Ø Does speaking a regional language/dialect have a positive impact on the ability of Dutch speakers to understand Frisian? Ø Do speaker’s impressions on difficulty to understand Frisian correlate with their actual scores in an intelligibility test? Ø Online test using GoogleForm. Ø Two reading exercises; three listening exercises; two translation exercises (of 10 sentences each) Ø At the end of the test, participants had to rank the difficulty of the exercises from 1 to 5 —1 being ‘very easy’ and 5 being ‘very difficult’ (Likert scale, cf. Revilla et al. 2013). Ø N = 226 Ø 74.78% females, 24.78% males and 1 person who identified as neither Ø 80% born in the Netherlands, 20% born in Belgium. Ø Ages between 16-79 (Mean age: 34.40) Figure 1: Participants’ scores by country of origin and dialect y/n INTRODUCTION RESEARCH QUESTIONS METHODOLOGY CONCLUSION RESULTS