|
There are more details that must be gathered before a complete picture of the influence of Frisian on the development of modern Dutch may be presented. The phonology of Frisian and Hollands must be compared in greater detail, along with that of the other Frankish dialects of Dutch, in order to tease out aspects of ABN which are due to Frisian influence. The same should be done for the syntax of these languages, given that syntactic interference is as common as phonetic interference. The strongest pressure of Hollands on Frisian began with the granting of Frisian-speaking Noord-Holland to the Counts of Holland, who spoke (Frankish) Middle Dutch, in the late 13th century. Words borrowed by Middle Dutch during this stage of the language need to be teased out of the lexicon and considered, using more detailed etymological dictionaries or older works such as Kiliaan (1599) and the literature concerning it. Many, like Woensdag, are by now so nativized that they are no longer recognized as non-Hollands. Do they fit into the same culture-related categories as the more recent borrowings mentioned in this paper? Ethiopic Semitic has borrowed some words from Cushitic that are not typical of loan word categories, such as kinship terms and numerals (Thomason & Kaufman 1988:134); a similar occurrence of Frisian words in ABN is therefore not to be dismissed automatically. The relative numbers of target and shifting language speakers in Noord-Holland, as well as the length of time taken to achieve the shift, are also factors that must be considered. The amount of phonological interference suggests that either the shift occurred rapidly, so that the shifting speakers did not have time to learn the new language completely, or else that there were too few target language speakers and too many shifting ones for sufficient models to be available to all who were learning this new language (both of these factors come under the rubric of "intensity of contact", Thomason and Kaufman 1988:72). Attitudes to the other language and its speakers are also a factor, and may be reflected in contemporary stories or medieval Dutch-Frisian phrase books. If the Hollands speakers held a strongly negative attitude toward the Frisian speakers, they would be less likely to borrow many Frisian words (but note the borrowing of Hindi words into British English). They might have learned stadsfries in order to achieve the necessary communication but avoid acquiring any more of the Frisian language than absolutely necessary. (footnote 16) Moreover, such a negative attitude might also lead the Hollands speakers to keep themselves apart from the native population, thus denying the Frisian speakers a model to follow and increasing the likelihood of learners' errors entering the Middle Dutch spoken by local natives. Guy (1990:62-63) also mentions the crucial effect of social variables such as the demographic balance and status difference of the contacting communities, as well as that of access to the target language. And if the Frisian speakers' attitude toward the Hollands speakers was strongly negative, they would be more likely to have actively resisted a shift to Hollands. Indeed, their attitude need not have been all that strongly negative, based on the situation in Friesland early in this century when the farmers came into contact with the socially more prestigious stadsfries (discussed earlier). Apparently, "people preferred rather to make fun of the 'fine' language of the salesmen, chemists, and such people than be tempted to take over their 'funny' language" (Fokkema and Van der Hoek 1967:50). All this sounds very uncertain, but it must be borne in mind that "attitudinal and most other social factors that affect the linguistic outcomes of contact situations vary in ways that are, at least at present, beyond prediction" (Thomason & Kaufman 1988:65).
|