The Acquisition of Grammatical Gender
by Second Language Learners of
Dutch: Evidence from Perception
MA Thesis English Language and Culture, Utrecht University
Programme Language and Development (Linguistics)
Marije Takens
Student number 0038210
Supervisor Dr. Sharon Unsworth
Co-reader Prof. Dr. René Kager
August 2008
Acknowledgements
Without the support of a considerable number of people inside and outside the linguistics department
of Utrecht University this thesis could not have been written. Firstly, I want to thank my supervisors Dr.
Sharon Unsworth and Prof. Dr. René Kager. Their expertise has given shape to the research project
we carried out and their supervision has resulted in these pages. I also want to thank my internship
partner Marlinda Andeweg, with whom I worked on this project for many months. Dr. Hugo Quené, who
has assisted in the practical set-up of the experiment by recording the large amount of sentences we
eventually presented to our participants, certainly was the 'voice' of the project and I am grateful for
this. My gratitude also goes out to Dr. Laura Sabourin, who has allowed us to use stimuli from her PhD
study as stimuli for our production task. I also want to thank the members of the Utrecht Institute of
Linguistics OTS whose comments and suggestions during the presentation of our research set-up have
been of much use. Many thanks go to Sander van der Harst of the UiL-OTS for helping me with the
statistics. A vital condition to the current project has been the participation of thirty-four English native
speakers who learnt Dutch as a foreign language. Without their support and effort this research project
could not have been carried out at all. The same holds for all Dutch native speaker control subjects.
The kind participation of volunteers has made this project possible and I want to express my gratitude
to all of them. I cannot thank my family and friends enough, especially my parents, my sisters, Saskia,
Xiaoli, Camie, Hannah, Erde, Gion and Annemarie, for the necessary support, distraction and useful
(statistical) tips they gave me during the process of writing my thesis. Finally, my special thanks go out
to Sven for always being kind and supportive and of course for lending me his laptop during the project.
2
Abstract
Previous studies into the acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender have shown that second
language learners have serious difficulties with the definite determiners, especially with neuter het.
Second language learners of Dutch systematically show a delay in the acquisition of the definite
determiners as well as signs of fossilisation in a non-targetlike stage of overgeneralisation (Hulk &
Cornips 2006a,b; Cornips et al., 2006; Blom et al., in press; Unsworth, in press; Cornips & Hulk, in
press; Brouwer et al., in press). Learners mainly overgeneralise de, but make errors in the other
direction as well by also using het for common nouns (Cornips et al., 2006; Unsworth, in press).
Various researchers argue that the difficulties with the Dutch definite determiners may be due
to an underspecification of the gender feature in second language learners, i.e. learners are aware of
gender but do not have a complete knowledge and do not know the right gender specification (yet)
(Hulk & Cornips, 2006b; Cornips & Hulk, in press; Brouwer et al., in press). Most of the previous
research focuses on production. The only study to date which focuses on comprehension is the study
by Brouwer et al. (in press). This thesis attempts to gain more insight into the role of comprehension in
the second language acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender. It investigates the perception of the
definite determiners by second language learners of Dutch. Since het is mostly non-salient in informal
speech as a result of its phonological context, while de is mostly salient, second language learners
possibly fail to perceive het. A failure to perceive het is likely to lead to a failure to store het in the
mental lexicon. A failure to represent het in the mental lexicon may lead to an underspecification of the
grammatical gender feature in second language learners of Dutch, causing them to overgeneralise de.
This proposal is put forward as the saliency hypothesis. This thesis also investigates the second
language learners' production capacities to determine whether they can correctly produce gender.
The results of the perception experiment indicate that the second language learners have
difficulties with the perception of het. The analysis of the influence of phonological context on the
misperception of het and the results of the perception experiment and production task combined
suggest that the saliency hypothesis is borne out. However, because the hypothesised hierarchy of
difficulty is only largely (and not entirely) borne out in the results, the influence of phonological context
on the misperception of het is not entirely clear. The results of the perception experiment and the
production task combined suggest that a better perception of het may lead to a better production of
het and vice versa. However, the effect of phonological context on this relationship has not been
investigated. Further research will have to shed more light on these issues.
The results of the production task are in line with the previous research. The vast majority of
the second language learners uses de with neuter nouns. This suggests that they overgeneralise by
means of a default strategy. Almost one third of the second language learners also uses het with
common nouns. The results of the production task also show frequency effects. The second language
learners appear to find the medium frequency nouns more difficult than the high frequency nouns.
The factors age of acquisition, proficiency and length of exposure appear to have an effect on
performance. Earlier acquisition and a higher proficiency level seem to lead to a better perception of
het. Furthermore, earlier acquisition and lengthier exposure seem to lead to a better production of het
and a higher proficiency level seems to lead to a better production of both de and het.
3
Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................... 3
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 7
2 Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................... 10
2.1 Grammatical Gender ....................................................................................... 10
2.2 The Dutch Grammatical Gender System ........................................................ 11
2.3 The Acquisition of Grammatical Gender ......................................................... 13
2.4 The Acquisition of Dutch Grammatical Gender ............................................... 16
2.5 The Saliency Hypothesis: The Influence of Phonological Context .................. 21
2.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 21
2.5.2 The Cliticisation of Het and De ................................................................. 23
2.5.3 T-deletion in Het ....................................................................................... 26
2.5.4 Summary .................................................................................................. 27
3 The Present Study ................................................................................................. 28
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 28
3.2 Research Questions........................................................................................ 28
3.3 Hypotheses ..................................................................................................... 29
3.4 Predictions ...................................................................................................... 32
4 The Perception Experiment ................................................................................... 33
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 33
4.2 The Questionnaire........................................................................................... 34
4.2.1 The Second Language Learners .............................................................. 34
4.2.2 The Dutch Native Speaker Control Group ................................................ 34
4.3 Participants ..................................................................................................... 35
4.4 Experimental Design: Stimuli .......................................................................... 37
4.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 37
4.4.2 The Nonce Nouns ..................................................................................... 38
4.4.3 The Manner Adverbs ................................................................................ 40
4.4.4 The Cliticisation of Het and De in the Experiment .................................... 40
4.4.5 The Fillers ................................................................................................. 42
4.4.6 The Distribution of the Nonce Nouns Across the Contexts ....................... 43
4.5 Procedure: Method.......................................................................................... 45
4.6 The C-Test ...................................................................................................... 47
4.7 Results ............................................................................................................ 47
4.7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 47
4.7.2 Factors to Observe ................................................................................... 48
4.7.3 Group Results........................................................................................... 51
4.7.3.1 General Results ................................................................................. 51
4.7.3.2 The Dutch Control Group ................................................................... 52
4.7.3.3 The Second Language Learners........................................................ 52
4.7.3.4 Comparison of the Groups ................................................................. 53
4.7.3.5 Summary............................................................................................ 55
4.7.4 Group Results per Factor ......................................................................... 56
4.7.4.1 Age of First Exposure ........................................................................ 56
4.7.4.2 Length of Exposure ............................................................................ 59
4.7.4.3 Intensity of Exposure ......................................................................... 61
4.7.4.4 Proficiency ......................................................................................... 64
4.7.4.5 Correlation Between the Factors and Performance ........................... 67
4.7.4.6 Summary............................................................................................ 68
4
4.7.5 The Influence of Phonological Context ..................................................... 69
4.7.5.1 The Contexts Before Het.................................................................... 70
4.7.5.1.1 Group Results ............................................................................. 70
4.7.5.1.2 Group Results per Factor: Age of First Exposure ........................ 72
4.7.5.1.3 Group Results per Factor: Proficiency ......................................... 74
4.7.5.1.4 Summary ..................................................................................... 76
4.7.5.2 The Contexts After Het ...................................................................... 77
4.7.5.2.1 Group Results ............................................................................. 77
4.7.5.2.2 Group Results per Factor: Age of First Exposure ........................ 79
4.7.5.2.3 Group Results per Factor: Proficiency ......................................... 81
4.7.5.2.4 Summary ..................................................................................... 83
4.7.5.3 The Het-Stop Contexts ...................................................................... 84
4.7.5.3.1 Group Results ............................................................................. 84
4.7.5.3.2 Group Results per Factor: Age of First Exposure ........................ 86
4.7.5.3.3 Group Results per Factor: Proficiency ......................................... 88
4.7.5.3.4 Summary ..................................................................................... 89
4.7.5.4 The Full Contexts of Het .................................................................... 90
4.7.5.4.1 Group Results ............................................................................. 90
4.7.5.4.2 Group Results per Factor: Age of First Exposure ........................ 93
4.7.5.4.3 Group Results per Factor: Proficiency ......................................... 95
4.7.5.4.4 Summary ..................................................................................... 98
4.7.5.5 The Stop-Het-Stop Contexts .............................................................. 99
4.7.5.5.1 Group Results ............................................................................. 99
4.7.5.5.2 Group Results per Factor: Age of First Exposure ...................... 101
4.7.5.5.3 Group Results per Factor: Proficiency ....................................... 103
4.7.5.5.4 Summary ................................................................................... 104
4.7.6 Individual Results ................................................................................... 105
4.7.7 General Summary .................................................................................. 106
5 The Production Task............................................................................................ 109
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 109
5.2 Participants ................................................................................................... 109
5.3 Experimental Design: Stimuli ........................................................................ 109
5.4 Procedure: Method........................................................................................ 110
5.5 Results .......................................................................................................... 110
5.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 110
5.5.2 General Results ...................................................................................... 111
5.5.3 Results per Factor .................................................................................. 112
5.5.3.1 Age of First Exposure ...................................................................... 112
5.5.3.2 Proficiency ....................................................................................... 114
5.5.3.3 Length of Exposure .......................................................................... 116
5.5.3.4 Intensity of Exposure ....................................................................... 118
5.5.3.5 Correlation Between the Factors and Performance ......................... 120
5.5.3.6 Regression Analysis ........................................................................ 121
5.5.4 Individual Results ................................................................................... 122
5.5.5 General Summary .................................................................................. 123
6 Perception and Production .................................................................................. 125
7 General Discussion ............................................................................................. 129
7.1 Perception ..................................................................................................... 129
7.2 Production ..................................................................................................... 133
5
7.3 Perception and Production ............................................................................ 135
7.4 Theoretical Implications ................................................................................ 136
8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 138
References ............................................................................................................. 140
Appendices ............................................................................................................. 148
Appendix 1 .......................................................................................................... 148
Appendix 2 .......................................................................................................... 149
Appendix 3 .......................................................................................................... 151
Appendix 4 .......................................................................................................... 163
Appendix 5 .......................................................................................................... 165
Appendix 6 .......................................................................................................... 172
6
1 Introduction
When young children acquire their native language or languages they do this effortlessly and
naturally, provided that they possess a normal language capacity and do not suffer from linguistic
impairments or general cognitive deficits. Young children are wholly successful in acquiring the
language(s) of their environment and appear to become fluent in any language they learn at this
stage. Second language acquisition, however, is a different story. Most adolescents and adults who
attempt to develop a native mastery of a foreign language do not succeed (e.g. Strozer, 1994).
Apparently, learning a second language is much more difficult than first language acquisition.
Many theorists have sought to explain the differences between first-and second language
acquisition. Some focus on learner’s innate capacities for language acquisition, others emphasize the
role of general psychological processes, and still others point to the importance of the sociocultural
dimension. The differences between first-and second language acquisition are often related to
Universal Grammar, i.e. innateness. It is argued that there are maturational constraints that cause a
critical period or multiple critical periods for language acquisition. After such a period (or periods), it
becomes increasingly difficult to learn a new language due to the inability of parameter fixing after a
certain age (see e.g. Strozer, 1994). The theories on a critical period for language acquisition (see
Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003 for a recent overview) and multiple critical periods (see e.g. Meisel,
2007; Schachter, 1996; Beck, 1998; Eubank & Gregg, 1999) all focus on innateness. Nevertheless,
innateness remains a much debated issue. Cognitive and developmental psychologists place the
emphasis on general cognitive processes, stating that general theories of learning can account for the
development of syntax and other complex aspects of language acquisition. They are of the opinion
that there is no need to hypothesise about a specific language learning module in the brain, and that
language acquisition and general learning are not distinct processes (see e.g. Favreau & Segalowitz,
1983; Segalowitz, 2003; DeKeyser, 1998, 2001). Connectionist models, computer models imitating the
brain, are used to support this view (see e.g. Ellis, 2002, 2003, 2005). The sociocultural perspective
states that cognitive development, of which language acquisition is part, takes place because of social
interaction (see e.g. Vygotsky, 1978). Connectionist and sociocultural models, however, cannot
account for one crucial aspect of language acquisition, namely the fact that learners of a (second)
language come to know many things about the language they cannot have derived from the input.
Chomsky has called this the poverty of the stimulus (see e.g. Chomsky, 1980; Strozer, 1994). The
innatist theory can account for this phenomenon. Therefore, an innatist view is taken in this thesis.
Although a more advanced age of acquisition appears to have a negative influence on the
ability to acquire a language natively, this does not imply that it is impossible for later learners to
achieve a high level of attainment in the new language. There are second language acquirers who
reach a level of ultimate attainment (see Singleton & Ryan, 2004 for a recent discussion).1 Relatively
few second language acquirers succeed in reaching such a level, but the percentage of them who do
(around 10-15%) cannot simply be dismissed (see Birdsong, 1999 and Birdsong & Paik, 2008).
1
The term ultimate is not used here to suggest nativelike. Rather, ultimate attainment is used here to denote the
"end state or asymptote of L2A, however close to or far from nativelike that state may be" (Birdsong, 1999: 10).
7
One phenomenon which has proved to be particularly difficult to learn for second language
acquirers is grammatical gender. Most learners have great difficulty in mastering a second language
grammatical gender system, even after considerable exposure to the target language in question.
Grammatical gender is problematic for adult second language acquirers (Carroll, 1989; Dewaele &
Veronique, 2001; Bruhn de Garavito & White, 2002; Franceschina, 2005 on Romance languages;
Rogers, 1987 on German; Andersson, 1992; Hyltenstam, 1992 on Swedish) and for child second
language acquirers (Carroll, 1989; Andersson, 1992; Blom et al., 2006; Hulk & Cornips 2006a).
This thesis investigates the second language acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender. Dutch
has a two-way gender-system, as nouns have either de (non-neuter, common gender) or het (neuter
gender). Studies on the monolingual child acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender show that
monolingual children have serious difficulties with the acquisition of neuter gender and that the
problems persist until age 6 (see Bol & Kuiken, 1988; Gillis & De Houwer, 1998; Van der Velde, 2003,
2004, Blom et al., under review). It is widely known in linguistics that when first language acquirers
have problems acquiring a certain phenomenon, the problems second language acquirers encounter
can be expected to be even more serious. The acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender by second
language learners, however, is relatively under-researched. Recently, interest in this topic has been
increasing. Current research on the second language acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender by
children and adults has reported persistent problems with Dutch definite determiners (Hulk & Cornips
2006a,b; Cornips et al., 2006; Brouwer et al., in press; Cornips & Hulk, in press; Blom et al., in press;
Unsworth, in press) and problems with adjectival inflection (Weerman et al., 2002; Blom et al., 2005;
Blom et al., in press). A pattern that is generally reported in these studies is a delay in the acquisition
of Dutch neuter gender, manifesting itself in the overgeneralisation of Dutch common gender.
Moreover, the data also suggest fossilisation in this non-targetlike stage of overgeneralisation.
Both child and adult second language acquirers of Dutch show signs of fossilisation in the
aforementioned studies. It is frequently observed that adult second language acquirers fossilise before
reaching a native level of attainment (e.g. Bley-Vroman, 1990), while child second language acquirers
are regularly observed to attain native levels of competence (see Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003
for a discussion). Grammatical gender appears to be exceptionally difficult for child second language
acquirers. One could argue that the child second language acquirers of Dutch grammatical gender
may not have reached their end state yet at the time of testing. This, however, is not supported by the
data. The child acquirers in the study by Cornips et al. (2006) continue to overgeneralise until the age
of 10 to 13 years, while the age of first exposure to Dutch (age of onset) ranges from birth to 4 years.
Moreover, Unsworth (in press) mentions children who still overgeneralise when they have reached the
relatively advanced age of 17 years, with age of first exposure ranging from birth to 7 years.2
The question that arises is why Dutch neuter gender is so difficult to learn for second language
acquirers. Monolingual acquirers generally overcome the problems with Dutch neuter gender and
become target-like, but this does not seem to be the case for second language acquirers. Instead,
they seem to fossilise in the overgeneralisation stage. The problems with Dutch neuter gender second
2
The children in these studies have characteristics of both bilingual and early child second language acquirers.
See Chapter 2, section 2.4, for more information.
8
language acquirers experience have many possible causes. The problems may be due to production
difficulties, comprehension difficulties, or both. Although the relationship between the perception and
production of second language speech sounds is still rather unclear, it is clear that both perception
and production are important during the acquisition process (see e.g. Llisterri, 1995; Rochet, 1995).
Most of the current research on the second language acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender focuses
on production (Hulk & Cornips 2006a,b; Cornips et al., 2006; Blom et al., in press; Unsworth, in press),
and a limited amount of data on comprehension is available (Brouwer et al., in press). Therefore, the
goal of the present study is to gain more insight into the role of comprehension in the second language
acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender.
The aim of this thesis is to gain more insight into the perception of Dutch definite determiners
by second language learners. As mentioned previously, especially neuter het causes problems for
second language learners. The research presented here is motivated by our research team’s
observation that the Dutch definite determiner [hεt] is more often than not reduced to the non-salient
forms [ət] and [ə] in fast, informal speech as a result of its phonological context (see e.g. Booij, 1995).
It is possible that second language learners of Dutch systematically fail to perceive het as a result of
its non-saliency. The input second language learners are exposed to is largely informal speech in
which het is reduced. If second language learners indeed fail to perceive het on a regular basis, they
are also likely to fail to store het in the mental lexicon. The mental lexicon is the speaker’s memory
store for words from which information is retrieved (van Berkum, 1997). The failure to represent het in
the mental lexicon may lead to an underspecification of the gender feature in second language
learners, causing them to overgeneralise. More research into the perception of the Dutch definite
determiners, in particular the perception of Dutch neuter het, may yield more insight into the persistent
difficulties with grammatical gender second language learners experience.
This thesis is organised as follows. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical framework. In this
chapter the concept grammatical gender, the Dutch grammatical gender system and the acquisition of
(Dutch) grammatical gender are touched on. The phonology of het in informal speech also receives
attention in this chapter. In Chapter 3 the main research questions, hypotheses and predictions are
put forward. In Chapter 4 the perception experiment is outlined, the results are given and the results
are discussed. In Chapter 5 the production task is outlined, the results are given and the results are
discussed. Chapter 6 combines the results of the perception experiment and the production task.
Chapter 7 discusses the results of both experiments and Chapter 8 provides a conclusion.
9
2 Theoretical Framework
2.1 Grammatical Gender
Corbett points out that the word gender etymologically derives from the Latin genus. It has
reached us via Old French gendre, and originally meant kind or sort (Corbett, 1991: 1). Grammatical
gender is also known as noun class. Linguistically, the term gender is used for a group of nouns and
for the category as a whole: “thus we may say that a particular language has, say, three genders,
masculine, feminine and neuter, and that the language has the category of gender” (Corbett, 1991: 1).
Comrie (1999) defines gender as “a system in which the class to which a noun is assigned is reflected
in the forms that are taken by other elements syntactically related to it” (457). In the same passage, he
states that “crucial to the concept […] is thus agreement in gender between the noun and other items”.
Gender agreement is the way gender is realised in language use, and therefore provides the basis for
defining gender. A uniform definition for agreement does not exist and Corbett takes Steele’s (1978)
as a working definition:
The term agreement commonly refers to some systematic covariance between a
semantic or formal property of one element and a formal property of another. For
example, adjectives may take some formal indication of the number and gender of the
noun they modify (taken from Corbett, 1991: 105, emphasis in text).
Gender agreement is especially common in adjectives, i.e. in adjectival inflection (Corbett, 1991: 106).
In Dutch, agreement in adjectives occurs when the indefinite article een (a) is used: (1) een groot huis
(a big house; neuter); (2) een grote koe (a big cow; non-neuter). When the definite determiners are
used there is also agreement, but it is the same for neuter and non-neuter nouns: (1) het grote huis
(the big house; neuter); (2) de grote koe (the big cow; non-neuter). The terms concord and agreement
can be used interchangeably, but some theorists prefer to distinguish the two (Corbett, 1991: 105).
Grammatical gender is both a lexical and a syntactic property of a noun: “the assignment of gender to
nouns is considered a lexical property while gender agreement is considered to be part of syntax”
(Sabourin, 2003: 15). Because gender agreement is part of syntax, it is constrained by Universal
Grammar.
Corbett discusses over 200 languages and concludes that grammatical gender is certainly
widespread, also among the Indo-European language family which dominates Europe and large parts
of Asia. In some languages grammatical gender occurs in practically every sentence that is spoken,
while it is entirely absent from other languages. A language can have two or more classes of genders.
Some languages have three genders (e.g. German), others two (e.g. Dutch), and some have lost
gender altogether (e.g. English) (Corbett, 1991: 1-2). Dutch nouns like boom (tree) and hond (dog)
require the definite article de (non-neuter), while nouns like huis (house) and meisje (girl) require the
definite article het (neuter). German has a similar gender system with one additional gender form; it
has three, namely der (masculine), die (feminine), and das (neuter). The precise make-up of the Dutch
grammatical gender system is discussed in section 2.2.
Comrie notes that grammatical gender can easily be confused with two related concepts,
namely natural gender (sex) and declension(al) class, but that these should be carefully distinguished
10
from grammatical gender.3 Grammatical gender and natural gender sometimes correspond, but they
do not always match (the noun meisje (girl), for example, has neuter gender in Dutch and not feminine
(non-neuter) gender). The same holds for declensional class.
Comrie also discusses the semantic and formal principles by which nouns are allotted to
different genders. Predictably, the semantic principle entails that “nouns are assigned to a gender
according to their meaning”, and the formal principle that “nouns are assigned to gender according to
their form” (Comrie, 1999: 458-59). There are also languages in which gender assignment appears to
be quite arbitrary, however. In German, for example, der Löffel (the spoon), die Gabel (the fork) and
das Messer (the knife) occur alongside each other (van Berkum, 1997: 119). Moreover, depending on
the language, the same noun can have a different gender. Moon, for example, is masculine in German
(Mond), feminine in French (lune) and neuter in Greek (Фεууαρι) (Holmes & Segui, 2006: 6).
Van Berkum (1996) and Franceschina (2005) have attempted to answer the question of why
grammatical gender exists in the first place. After reviewing the relevant literature, they conclude that
grammatical gender appears to be a linguistic feature which serves to facilitate and optimise lexical
and syntactic processing. Grammatical gender may disambiguate syntactic constructions (van
Berkum, 1996). Gender agreement, in its turn, can “help to make functional lexical items such as
articles more readily learnable, despite the interference of other factors” (Franceschina, 2005: 84).
2.2 The Dutch Grammatical Gender System
Standard Dutch, like German and English, belongs to the West Germanic branch of the IndoEuropean language family. The Dutch grammatical gender system has two genders, neuter and nonneuter (also known as common or uter gender). Dutch grammatical gender is not reflected in the
morphology of the noun but in agreeing elements accompanying the noun or referring to it.
Grammatical gender in Dutch is clearly visible on singular definite determiners and singular
demonstrative determiners, which morphologically vary according to the gender of the accompanying
noun. Dutch gender is visible on definite determiners, demonstrative determiners, relative determiners
and adjectival inflection with indefinite nouns. Neuter is associated with het-words (het huis, the
house) and non-neuter with de-words (de ster, the star), i.e. neuter nouns are preceded by the neuter
determiner het and non-neuter nouns are preceded by the non-neuter determiner de. The gender of
the noun determines the form of any agreeing elements in the syntactic structure of the Determiner
Phrase (DP) (see van Berkum, 1996 for a discussion). Grammatical gender in Dutch is often analysed
as an uninterpretable feature on the noun, which checks or values the uninterpretable gender features
on agreeing elements, such as definite determiners and adjectives (Carstens, 2000).
It has often been argued that Dutch grammatical gender seems to be developing from a state
that resembles modern German to one that resembles modern English (e.g. Vandeputte, Vincent &
Hermans, 1991; Geerts, 1988; Kooij, 1987). Dutch originally had three genders: masculine (de),
feminine (de) and neuter (het). The masculine-feminine distinction, however, has gradually collapsed
3
The terms grammatical gender and gender are used interchangeably in this thesis. When natural gender is
discussed, as is the case here, it is explicitly mentioned as natural gender.
11
into a single non-neuter group, probably due to the relative size of the de-and het groups. Van Berkum
(1996) has examined the Dutch gender ratio and confirms dictionary-based estimates that Dutch has
(much) more de-words (75%) than het-words (25%). Depending on how the words are counted, the
ratio varies from 2:1 to 3:1 (van Berkum, 1996: 35). This shows that the distribution of de-and het word
occurrences is very uneven. Consequently, de has a default status. De occurs even more frequently
because it is also used for plural nouns of both genders (Hulk & Cornips, 2006b). Het is also used in a
different part of Dutch speech, namely as expletive pronoun (e.g. het regent, it rains) and personal
pronoun (e.g. ik zag het zonet nog, I saw it just now) (van Berkum, 1996: 26). However, because of
the default status of de and the fact that de is also used for plural nouns, de still occurs much more
frequently than het. In spontaneous Dutch speech, at least twice as many de-words occur as hetwords.
The targets for Dutch gender agreement are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 Agreement targets in the Dutch gender system (taken from van Berkum, 1996: 25)
De-words
common gender
Het-words
neuter gender
English equivalent
definite article
de ster
het huis
the star, house
demonstrative pronoun
possessive pronoun
deze ster
die ster
onze ster
dit huis
dat huis
ons huis
this star, house
that star, house
our star, house
Interrogative pronoun
welke ster?
welk huis?
which star, house?
indefinite pronoun
elke ster
iedere ster
menige ster
elk huis
ieder huis
menig huis
each star, house
every star, house
many a star, house
relative pronoun
de ster die…
the star, house that…
adjectives in indefinite NPs
(een) kleine ster
(een) rode ster
de rode ster
het huis dat…
het huis wat…
(een) klein huis
(een) rood huis
het rode huis
adjectives in definite NPs
(a) small star, house
(a) red star, house
the red star, house
There is no gender distinction in the morphology of the indefinite determiner in Dutch, which is een for
both neuter and non-neuter nouns: de ster, het huis (the star, the house) >> een ster, een huis (a star,
a house). There is no evidence for grammatical gender on the plural of the definite determiner either,
as this is de for all nouns: de sterren, de huizen (the stars, the houses). Cornips & Hulk (in press) note
that this causes a very low saliency of grammatical gender on determiners in the Dutch input. Gender
is only clearly visible in the opposition between de and het in the singular definite determiner, and
between die/deze and dat/dit in the singular demonstrative determiner. The saliency of the contrast is
further weakened by the frequency differences between neuter and common nouns. Consequently,
the most salient evidence for determiner features in the Dutch input is the opposition definite-indefinite
(Cornips & Hulk, in press: 22).
There are hardly any morphological and semantic regularities which could point to the gender
of nouns in Dutch, and the regularities that exist have many exceptions (Donaldson, 1987: 27-33;
Geerts et al., 1984: 41-49). For example, most words for humans are de-words. There is one
unambiguous morpho-phonological cue for neuter gender, however, namely the diminutive suffix -je.
All diminutives in Dutch are neuter, even when they are derived from a common noun (e.g. het huis –
12
het huisje, the house – the little house; de muis – het muisje, the mouse – the little mouse). The
diminutive suffix, which frequently occurs, is the only regular morphological cue for neuter gender in
Dutch. Because such regularities hardly occur, (psycho)linguists see Dutch gender assignment as an
essentially random affair (e.g. Jescheniak, 1994; Wijnen & Deutsch, 1987; de Houwer, 1987).
2.3 The Acquisition of Grammatical Gender
As stated in the previous sections, the relation between a noun and its gender is in principle
arbitrary. For this reason, current psycholinguistic models of gender processing are based on the idea
that gender is stored in the mental lexicon as an inherent, syntactic property of nouns and looked up in
spontaneous speech (Garrett, 1988, 1992; Levelt, 1989, 1999, 2001; Dell, 1986, 1990; Caramazza,
1997; see Schriefers & Jescheniak, 1999 for a recent discussion).
Grammatical gender is one of the earliest properties to emerge in first language acquisition
and, depending on the language being learned, also one of the earliest to be mastered (Franceschina,
2005: 107). In order to acquire a grammatical gender system, learners need to distinguish the
grammatical categories involved in the gender system from other grammatical categories (Carroll,
1999: 45). Learners need to notice, for instance, that the form of the determiner morphologically varies
depending on the noun (or the form of the noun) that accompanies it (Carroll, 1989). When learners
notice agreement in gender between the noun and the determiner related to it, this may trigger gender
awareness and lead to gender acquisition.
Children can rely on different types of gender cues when acquiring the gender system of their
native language, namely syntactic, morphophonological and semantic cues. Syntactic cues are the
forms articles, adjectives, pronouns and passive participles related to a given noun take,
morphophonological cues are the endings of nouns (e.g. -a or -o), and semantic cues are the noun’s
(in)animacy and sex (Franceschina, 2005: 107). Very young children seem to rely especially on
morphophonological cues and to a lesser extent on semantic and syntactic cues (e.g. MacWhinney,
1978; Böhme & Levelt, 1979; Mills, 1986; Karmiloff-Smith, 1979; Cain, Weber-Olsen & Smith, 1987).
As children get older, however, they begin to pay more attention to syntactic information. Researchers
think that “the strong effect of phonology at the early stages of development may be explained by
assuming that [initially] there are no syntactic gender features in the child’s grammar, and until these
are activated children are almost exclusively sensitive to morphophonological patterns” (Franceschina,
2005: 110). It is not clear yet why children do not make more extensive use of semantic gender cues.
When morphophonological and semantic gender cues are not available, the gender for each
noun has to be acquired individually, i.e. on a case by case basis (Unsworth, in press: 5). Thus,
gender acquisition boils down to word learning in the absence of cues (Carroll, 1989: 567). Since
grammatical gender acquisition largely has to be done through word learning, learners need to have
sufficient input to be able to acquire a targetlike grammatical gender system (Unsworth, in press). How
much input is needed exactly is not yet known.
According to Holmes & Dejean de la Bâtie, “gender acquisition for native speakers can be
plausibly explained by purely associative mechanisms” (1999: 480). Unambiguous gender markers,
typically definite and indefinite articles (e.g. French la maison, une maison; le couteau, un couteau),
13
are likely to serve as the learner’s major sources of information in this process. This kind of lexical
information is probably most important, while sublexical information such as word endings indicating
gender (e.g. French la maison, la baguette, le couteau, le monument) will reinforce the strength of
gender knowledge in a postaccess procedure of gender confirmation (Holmes & Dejean de la Bâtie,
1999; Desrochers & Paivio, 1990; Desrochers et al., 1989). According to connectionist models, word
endings can also influence the gender decision in an earlier stage, i.e. contribute to the gender
decision at the time the article is activated (e.g. Taft & Meunier, 1998). Holmes & Segui (2004) found
that people paid attention to lexical and sublexical gender cues in parallel.
The associative model as proposed by Homes & Dejean de la Bâtie (1999) assumes that all
first language acquirers can acquire the lexical and syntactic properties of gender and become targetlike. Indeed, all normal first language learners of grammatical gender become target-like, even though
the way in which this happens is dependent on the language being learned. The second language
acquisition of grammatical gender, however, shows a very different pattern. Adult second language
learners have persistent difficulties with grammatical gender and many studies observe that they fail to
become target-like, even after considerable exposure to the target language in question (Carroll, 1989;
Dewaele & Veronique, 2001; Bruhn de Garavito & White, 2002; Franceschina, 2005 on Romance
languages; Rogers, 1987 on German; Andersson, 1992; Hyltenstam, 1992 on Swedish). Child second
language acquirers also have difficulties with grammatical gender (Carroll, 1989; Andersson, 1992;
Blom et al., 2006; Hulk & Cornips, 2006a; Unsworth, in press). Importantly, second language learners
show signs of fossilisation, as they often seem unable to develop past the overgeneralisation stage
(e.g. Franceschina, 2005; Hulk & Cornips, 2006a,b; Cornips et al., 2006). First language learners also
overgeneralise (e.g. Clark, 1985; Gillis & De Houwer, 1998), but generally overcome this stage and
become target-like. Second language learners experience difficulties with using gender syntactically,
i.e. with gender agreement, but also with the relatively ‘simple’ procedure of assigning the correct
gender to nouns (Sabourin, 2003: 15). Consequently, both the syntactic and lexical properties of
gender are problematic for second language learners.
Various proposals have been put forward to explain the difficulties with grammatical gender
adult second language learners experience. One of these proposals is the Failed Functional Features
Hypothesis (FFFH) (Hawkins & Chan, 1997). The FFFH advances the idea that parameterised
functional features cannot be acquired after childhood (post-puberty) unless they are represented in
the first language. Parameterised functional features are features that do not substantially contribute
to meaning (e.g. Tense), but that do induce morphosyntactic operations (e.g. Agreement) (Blom et al.,
in press: 3). According to the FFFH, the first language of a second language learner has to instantiate
grammatical gender; if this is not the case the learner will experience serious difficulties with gender
(see also Carroll, 1989; Franceschina, 2005; Hawkins & Francescina, 2004; Unsworth, in press, Blom
et al., in press). Thus, the FFFH states that uninterpretable functional features are subject to critical
period effects (Blom et al., in press: 3).
Other researchers do not seek an explanation in the presence or absence of the grammatical
gender feature in the first language. Bruhn de Garavito & White (2002) point out that problems with
14
gender can also be found in adult second language learners whose first language does not instantiate
gender. Moreover, there are adult second language learners with a first language without gender, who
are able to acquire gender-marked determiners and adjectives (White et al., 2004). The explanation
Bruhn de Garavito & White (2002) propose, following Lardiere (2000) and Prévost & White (2000), is
the hypothesis that second language learners of grammatical gender experience a mapping problem
between syntax and morphology. Bruhn de Garavito & White state that second language learners of
gender may experience “difficulties in relating underlying abstract features to appropriately inflected
surface forms” (2002: 170). Brouwer et al. (in press) have, to some extent, found evidence supporting
this hypothesis. They report that child second language learners of Dutch grammatical gender show
awareness of gender specification in Dutch, but that they seem unable to produce the appropriate
morphological form. In line with Van der Velde’s (2004) proposal on the monolingual first language
acquisition of Dutch gender, Hulk & Cornips (2006b), Cornips & Hulk (in press) and Brouwer et al. (in
press) speculate that the difficulties with gender second language learners experience may be due to
an underspecification of the gender feature, i.e. second language learners are aware of gender but do
not have a complete knowledge and do not know the right gender specification (yet). This may cause
second language learners to overgeneralise.
According to Blom et al. (in press), the reason for the difficulties with grammatical gender may
be that adult second language acquirers use different learning strategies than children learning their
first language. Blom et al. propose that lexicon-driven strategies (learning based on associative
memory) remain available for adult learners, whereas grammar is subject to critical period effects.
This thesis further investigates the possibility of an underspecification of the Dutch gender
feature in second language learners as proposed by Hulk & Cornips (2006b), Cornips & Hulk (in
press) and Brouwer et al. (in press). More specifically, a possible cause for such an underspecification
is explored. This thesis focuses on the acquisition of the Dutch definite determiners, in particular the
comprehension (perception) of Dutch neuter het. As mentioned previously, the Dutch determiner [hεt]
varies depending on its phonological context and is more often than not reduced to [ət] and [ə] in
informal speech. This makes het non-salient, which may cause perception difficulties in second
language learners of Dutch. If second language learners indeed systematically fail to perceive het,
they are likely to fail to store het in the mental lexicon. The failure to represent het in the mental
lexicon may lead to an underspecification of the gender feature in second language learners, causing
them to overgeneralise.
The next section gives an overview of previous research on the acquisition of the Dutch
definite determiners, culminating in the study by Brouwer et al. (in press). Section 2.5 discusses the
phonology of het and de in Dutch informal, connected speech. The way het manifests itself in Dutch
informal speech is linked to the underspecification hypothesis as proposed by Hulk & Cornips (2006b),
Cornips & Hulk (in press) and Brouwer et al. (in press).
15
2.4 The Acquisition of Dutch Grammatical Gender
The monolingual first language acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender is a gradual, long
drawn-out process (e.g. Verrips & Wijnen, 1998). Globally speaking, four stages can be discerned in
the monolingual acquisition of determiners in Dutch. Like children acquiring other languages,
monolingual Dutch children initially produce bare nouns (Chierchia et al., 2001). Subsequently, before
the age of two years, children begin to produce a schwa-element /ə/ which resembles the indefinite
article een (a/an) (Bol & Kuiken, 1988). Examples of child utterances in the literature show that
combinations of definite article and noun are certainly present in the first half of the third year, which is
the third stage. Also around this time, children overgeneralise the non-neuter definite determiner de
instead of using neuter het (Van Zonneveld, 1992). The Dutch gender system appears to be difficult to
learn in comparison with, for example, the gender systems of the Romance languages and German.
German and French gender are acquired more quickly, i.e. by the age of three years (Mϋller, 1990;
Clark, 1985). By the age of three years gender distinctions in Dutch are not fully acquired yet, and de
is still overgeneralised (Gillis & De Houwer, 1998). Van der Velde (2003, 2004) has found that Dutch
children between three and six years still overgeneralise de where neuter het is expected, and the
target grammar only seems to be in place around age six. This is the final stage four.
L1 Dutch children overgeneralise in one direction only, i.e. they use a default (Van Zonneveld,
1992; Gillis & De Houwer, 1998; Van der Velde, 2002, 2003). This also seems to hold for Romance
languages (Clark, 1985). For Dutch, this means that de is consistently used instead of het, and not the
other way round. Van der Velde (2004) explains the overgeneralisation of de in terms of a dissociation
or mapping problem between syntax and morphology. Monolingual first language acquirers of Dutch
may already have acquired the uninterpretable gender feature, but it is still underspecified. Van der
Velde (2004) hypothesises that children initially adopt the unmarked default value (non-neuter)
because the gender feature is still underspecified when they begin to produce definite determiners. As
a consequence, they initially overgeneralise de. Later, children gain complete knowledge of the
marked value (neuter) and also begin to produce neuter het.
Johnson (2004) examined the comprehension of Dutch definite determiners by toddlers aged
26 to 30 months and found an asymmetry on het vs. de trials at this very early age as well. The
performance on de-words versus het-words varied; toddlers were insensitive to het-world trials, in
contrast to de-word trials. Apparently, Dutch-learning toddlers are only sensitive to common gender.
According to Johnson, the asymmetry can partly be explained by the fact that het has more than one
grammatical function. As mentioned previously, het is also used as expletive pronoun (e.g. het regent,
it rains) and as personal pronoun (e.g. ik zag het zonet nog, I saw it just now).
The second language acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender shows both similarities and
differences with the first language acquisition of gender in Dutch. As is the case in monolingual
acquisition, second language learners have difficulties in acquiring the Dutch definite determiners and
they, too, overgeneralise (Hulk & Cornips 2006a,b; Cornips et al., 2006; Blom et al., in press;
Unsworth, in press; Cornips & Hulk, in press; Brouwer et al., in press). However, unlike in monolingual
first language acquisition, second language learners of Dutch appear to fossilise in such a non-
16
targetlike stage of overgeneralisation (Hulk & Cornips 2006a,b; Cornips et al., 2006; Brouwer et. al, in
press; Unsworth, in press). Another difference with monolingual acquisition is that second language
learners of Dutch gender make errors in both directions, i.e. they do not exclusively use de as the
default (Cornips et al., 2006; Unsworth, in press).
In a series of studies, Cornips and Hulk investigate the acquisition of grammatical gender in
ethnic community children in The Netherlands (Hulk & Cornips, 2005; Hulk & Cornips 2006a, 2006b;
see also Cornips & Hulk, in press). The children in these studies have characteristics of both bilingual
and early child second language learners, because the input they receive is often non-targetlike and
because it is unclear what the quantity and quality is of the Dutch that these children are exposed to in
their earliest years. Bilingual children are children acquiring two languages from birth (2L1 acquisition),
and the two grammars emerge simultaneously. In second language acquisition (L2 acquisition) the two
grammars emerge successively. Sometimes children acquiring a second language between age 4 and
7 are also called bilinguals, but a clear distinction is made between the two groups in the (generative)
literature on acquisition.
Hulk & Cornips (2006a) compare bilingual children in three different age groups with age
matched monolingual controls. All bilingual children are between 3 and 10 years old. In the study, both
monolingual and bilingual children show a development in the correct use of de. Still, the bilingual
children show a delay in their development, i.e. there is a quantitative difference between the two
emerging grammars. When it comes to the production of het, the bilingual children have severe
acquisition difficulties. They seem to have fossilized in a developmental stage where they
overgeneralise the non-neuter definite article de. Thus, the data suggest that the bilinguals fossilise in
the non-targetlike stage of overgeneralisation. Hulk & Cornips note that the monolinguals also go
through a stage of overgeneralisation of de, but that contrary to the bilinguals, they progress beyond
this stage. Consequently, there also appears to be a qualitative difference between the two emerging
grammars. Hulk & Cornips note that this is a striking result, as previous literature has not reported
qualitative differences between mono-and bilinguals (Hulk & Cornips, 2006a). A delay or quantitative
difference is not unexpected, since under certain conditions an acceleration or delay is predicted in
bilingual acquisition (e.g. Paradis & Genesee, 1995; Hulk & Müller, 2000; Müller & Hulk, 2001).
Hulk & Cornips (2006b) examine possible explanations for the qualitative difference between
monolingual and bilingual children. They speculate that deficient input may be the cause of the
differences. As mentioned previously, the quantitative difference between mono-and bilinguals is not
unexpected. Bilingual children are exposed to quantitatively less input than monolingual children,
which may be the cause of a delay in the acquisition of het. Anderson (1999) and Umbel & Oller
(1995) also note that a reduced input has serious consequences for the lexical development of
bilinguals. The qualitative difference, however, is unexpected. In order to explain this difference, Hulk
& Cornips argue that bilingual children are not only exposed to a quantitatively different input, but also
to a qualitatively different input (e.g. overgeneralisation of de by parents, siblings, etc.) than
monolinguals, and that this may explain the difference in attainment between the two groups.
Hulk & Cornips (2006b) also propose a purely linguistic analysis. This proposal is in line with
Van der Velde’s (2004) theory of underspecification in monolingual first language acquirers of Dutch.
17
Hulk & Cornips state that when monolinguals begin to produce definite determiners, they “have
already acquired the [uninterpretable] gender feature, but it is still underspecified. It therefore takes the
default value [non-neuter] and is spelled out as de on all definite determiners” (Hulk & Cornips, 2006b:
14). According to Hulk & Cornips, there is no reason to assume that monolinguals and bilinguals differ
in this respect. Therefore, it is possible that the bilingual children have acquired the [neuter] gender
feature, but continue to use the default form de in spelling it out on the definite determiner because the
gender feature is still underspecified, i.e. it is possible that the bilinguals show a dissociation or
mapping problem between syntax and morphology (Hulk & Cornips, 2006b). Monolinguals progress
beyond this stage, whereas bilinguals possibly remain in this stage and fossilise.
Cornips et al. (2006) investigate the acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender (among other
things the definite determiners) in older monolingual and bilingual ethnic community children of 10-13
years old and their results show a similar pattern as the previous studies. The age of first exposure to
Dutch for these children ranges from birth to 4 years. Interestingly, the children make errors in both
directions, i.e. they do not exclusively use de as the default, but het as well. This is different from what
is observed in the monolingual first language acquisition of Dutch gender (Van Zonneveld, 1992; Gillis
& De Houwer, 1998; Van der Velde, 2002, 2003).
Blom et al. (in press) also investigate the acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender by ethnic
community children and adults. The children in this study are between 4 and 8 years old and the
adults are between 25 and 39 years old. The age of first (substantial) exposure to Dutch for the
children is approximately 4 years, while the age of first exposure for the adults is 15 years or older.
Blom et al. find a pattern of overgeneralisation of non-neuter articles to neuter contexts, while the
reverse infrequently occurs. As mentioned in the previous section, Blom et al. (in press) argue that
different learning strategies may account for the difficulties with grammatical gender second language
learners experience. Following Ullmann (2001a,b; 2004) and Hawkins & Franceschina (2004), Blom et
al. hypothesise that biological age has an influence on learner’s more abstract grammar-driven
representations, but not on lexical gender representations (in press: 5). Thus, lexicon-driven strategies
remain available for older learners, whereas grammar becomes inaccessible.
Unsworth (in press) extends Hulk & Cornips’ (2006a,b) proposal to a different bilingual
population. She investigates English-speaking children (5,5 to 17,5 years and 9,5 to 18,5 years) and
adults (22 to 50 years) acquiring Dutch as a second language. For the L2 children, age of first
exposure ranges from birth to 7 years, for the L2 preteens age of first exposure ranges from 8 to 12
years and for the L2 adults, age of first exposure ranges from 21 to 43 years. Unlike in Hulk & Cornips’
study, the English-speaking children in Unsworth’s study have not been exposed to a qualitatively
different input by the community (parents, siblings, etc.), and therefore, Unsworth hypothesises,
should not fossilise in the overgeneralisation stage. Unsworth's results show that the acquisition of het
is indeed delayed, and that the children overgeneralise de. She notes that this may also be an effect
of transfer from the first language, since English has the. The is phonologically similar to de rather
than to het. Unsworth also finds that some of the bilinguals use het with common nouns. Unsworth
notes that this may be a marker of bilingualism in Dutch. She cannot say yet whether her bilinguals
have fossilised in a non-targetlike state of overgeneralisation. There are learners who are targetlike in
18
Unsworth’s study, suggesting that “targetlike acquisition of grammatical gender as marked by the
definite determiner is in principle possible by English-speaking children and adults” (Unsworth, in
press: 29), but there are many more non-targetlike learners. Overall, Unsworth’s results suggest that
lengthy and intensive exposure may lead to more targetlike responses in bilinguals. Although
Unsworth cannot say yet how much input is needed exactly, she tentatively suggests that second
language learners need to have had at least 12 years of intensive exposure.
Sabourin et al. (2006) investigate the adult second language acquisition of Dutch grammatical
gender. Native speakers of English, German and a Romance language (French, Italian or Spanish)
who learnt Dutch as a second language are investigated. The results show a clear transfer effect, with
the following hierarchy in performance: German > Romance > English. This suggests that languages
which are similar are easier to learn than languages which differ, and that transfer plays an important
role in second language acquisition. Thus, Sabourin et al. claim that the morphological similarity
between first-and second language is crucial for the successful acquisition of grammatical gender. In
addition, Sabourin et al. find a clear frequency effect. All of the bilinguals produce the targetlike
determiner more often for high frequency nouns than for low frequency nouns.
Cornips & Hulk (in press) review the factors proposed in the literature that may explain the
success or failure in the child second language acquisition of grammatical gender in Dutch definite
determiners. These factors are (i) early age of onset (Blom et al., in press); (ii) lengthy and intensive
input (Unsworth, in press); (iii) the quality of the input (Hulk & Cornips, 2006b) and (iv) the role of the
other language (Sabourin et al., 2006). Cornips & Hulk claim that the first two factors may indeed
contribute to an explanation of the differences in success between less and more successful bilingual
children. With respect to the other two factors, Hulk & Cornips claim that “the influence of the quality of
the input in (standard) Dutch appears to be inconclusive, whereas the (structural) similarity of the
gender systems in the two languages may reinforce the children’s awareness of the grammatical
gender category” (in press: 2). Hulk & Cornips also claim that “it appears that individual bilingualism
versus societal bilingualism, that is the sociolinguistic context in which Dutch is acquired, is not a
factor for failure or success with respect to the acquisition of grammatical gender” (in press: 2). Finally,
Cornips & Hulk argue that the important role of the input is related to a language-internal factor. The
specific difficulties second language acquirers of Dutch grammatical gender experience may be due to
a specific factor in the Dutch gender system of the definite determiner which distinguishes it from that
of other languages and results in different acquisition paths. This factor is the way Dutch grammatical
gender on the determiner is dependent on definiteness, in contrast to the gender systems of Romance
languages or other Germanic languages. As mentioned in section 2.2, the only clear evidence for
gender on the determiner is the opposition between de and het in the singular definite determiner, and
between die/deze and dit/dat in the singular demonstrative determiner. However, the saliency of the
contrast is further weakened by the frequency differences between neuter and common nouns.
Consequently, the most salient evidence for determiner features in the Dutch input is the opposition
definite-indefinite (Cornips & Hulk, in press: 22). Following Hawkins & Franceschina (2004), Cornips &
Hulk assume that young monolingual and bilingual children have no gender specification in their Dutch
grammar. At a certain point, children become aware of gender, and they add a grammatical gender
19
feature to their grammar. This gender feature remains underspecified, however, and in the stage that
follows children may overgeneralise de, but also het. Monolingual children progress beyond this stage,
whereas bilinguals possibly remain in this stage and fossilise (Cornips & Hulk, in press).
As mentioned previously, the study by Brouwer et al. (in press) is directly relevant to the
perception experiment discussed in this thesis. In contrast to the studies mentioned above, which
focus on production, Brouwer et al. focus on comprehension in second language learners of Dutch
grammatical gender. Brouwer et al. investigate whether the acquisition problems with neuter gender
are due to a misrepresentation of the gender feature specification in the grammar of bilingual children
(misrepresentation hypothesis), or due to a mapping problem, i.e. difficulties in relating the appropriate
surface form to the correct underlying abstract feature (production hypothesis). Brouwer et al. try to
find evidence for either one of the hypotheses by carrying out a determiner comprehension task with
older bilingual ethnic community children (11-13 years). They do not find evidence for the first
hypothesis, but do find some evidence for the second. The children show knowledge of gender
specification in Dutch, but this is certainly not good knowledge. In addition, the children seem unable
to correctly produce gender and de seems to be used as a default production strategy. Similar to
previous studies, Brouwer et al.’s results suggest fossilisation in a non-targetlike stage of acquisition.
When combining their results with previous production data, Brouwer et al. hypothesise (in line with
Van der Velde, 2004 and Hulk & Cornips, 2006b, also see Cornips & Hulk, in press) that the reason for
the overgeneralisation of de in young bilinguals is that they initially do not have a gender specification
in their grammar. They are only aware of the definite feature and choose de as a default. At some
point they acquire a gender specification for definite determiners, but it remains underspecified. As a
result, they also use het for common nouns. Monolinguals progress beyond this stage, in contrast to
bilinguals, who fossilise (Brouwer et al., in press).
The proposal advanced by Brouwer et al. (in press) is in line with previous research by
Sabourin & Haverkort (2003). Sabourin & Haverkort investigate the representation of grammatical
knowledge and language processing in adult second language learners of Dutch with German as their
native language. Sabourin & Haverkort hypothesise that advanced second language learners may
have native-like knowledge, but process this knowledge in a non-native like manner. Sabourin &
Haverkort make use of ERPs, and find a qualitative difference between native speakers and second
language learners of Dutch in terms of language processing. Sabourin & Haverkort suggest a
dissociation between the representation and processing of grammatical knowledge.
As the previous research shows, second language learners of Dutch systematically show a
delay in the acquisition of the Dutch definite determiners as well as signs of fossilisation in a nontargetlike stage of overgeneralisation. Especially Dutch neuter gender (het) causes problems for
second language learners. The question is what causes these problems with the Dutch definite
determiners. Various researchers (Hulk & Cornips, 2006b; Cornips & Hulk, in press; Brouwer et al., in
press) argue that the difficulties may be due to an underspecification of the gender feature in second
language learners. Van der Velde (2004) also argues for an underspecification of the gender feature,
20
in order to explain the difficulties with Dutch definite determiners monolingual first language acquirers
experience.
In this thesis, the theory of an underspecification of the gender feature in second language
learners is further explored. Most of the previous research on the second language acquisition of
Dutch definite determiners focuses on production; only the study by Brouwer et al. (in press) is on
comprehension. Because the study by Brouwer et al. is the only study to date which focuses on
comprehension, the goal of the present study is to gain more insight into the role of comprehension in
the second language acquisition of Dutch gender. More specifically, this thesis investigates the
perception of the Dutch definite determiners by second language learners. Because especially neuter
gender (het) causes problems for second language learners, this thesis focuses on their perception of
het. It is possible that second language learners fail to perceive het. If this is the case, this may lead to
an underspecification of the gender feature in second language learners, which may cause them to
overgeneralise de. As the studies by Cornips et al. (2006) and Unsworth (in press) show, second
language learners also overgeneralise het. However, because the overgeneralisation of de to neuter
nouns far outweighs the other way round, this thesis focuses on this type of overgeneralisation only.
The next section outlines why especially het may easily be missed in perception. This section
also discusses the consequences of a systematic misperception of het by second language learners of
Dutch.
2.5 The Saliency Hypothesis: The Influence of Phonological Context
2.5.1 Introduction
As mentioned in the previous section, Hulk & Cornips (2006b), Cornips & Hulk (in press) and
Brouwer et al. (in press) suggest that the cause of the problems with neuter gender in second
language learners of Dutch may be an underspecification of the grammatical gender feature. As Van
der Velde (2004) points out, monolinguals also seem to go through this stage of underspecification,
but progress beyond it and become targetlike. Second language learners, however, possibly remain in
this stage and fossilise. In this section, a possible cause of underspecification in second language
learners of Dutch gender is proposed.
It is argued here, that the cause of underspecification in second language learners of Dutch
may be the non-saliency of het as induced by its phonological context. This proposal is put forward as
the saliency hypothesis. Het, phonologically [hεt], varies depending on its phonological context in
informal speech. As a result of its phonological context, het is more often than not reduced to [ət] and
occasionally to [ə] in informal speech. De, on the other hand, mostly remains unreduced and is
phonologically salient (see Table 2 below). Moreover, de is the default and de is used for all plural
nouns in Dutch.
Our research team has checked the way het and de are realised in Dutch speech in the CGN
(Corpus Gesproken Nederlands, Spoken Dutch Corpus). The CGN is a collection of spoken standard
Dutch comprising of about 9 million words. The results of the procedure are given in Table 2.
21
Table 2 The occurrence of de and het in the CGN
Het
De
Total frequency: 11.395
Total frequency: 31.319
Pronunciation
Frequency
Percentage
Pronunciation
Frequency
Percentage
[hεt]
576
5%
[də]
25.668
80%
[hət]
556
5%
[tə]
3.972
12%
[ət]
7.675
67%
[ə]
607
2%
[əd]
1.395
12%
[d]
387
1,2%
[t]
325
3%
Table 2 shows that the frequency difference between common and neuter nouns as mentioned in
section 2.2 is clearly visible in the CGN: de occurs 31.319 times and het occurs only 11.395 times.
Importantly, Table 2 reveals that het is hardly ever produced as [hεt]. In only 5 to 10% of the cases is
[hεt] produced in its full form, i.e. as [hεt] and as [hət]. In the rest of the cases [hεt] is reduced, mostly
to [ət] and [əd]. De, on the other hand, features as [də] in as much as 80% of the cases and as [tə] in
12% of the cases. In the rest of the cases [də] is mostly reduced to [ə]. This means that phonological
context has an influence on the pronunciation of both het and de, and that both are subject to
reduction. However, het mostly occurs in its reduced (non-salient) form, whereas de mostly occurs in
its unreduced (salient) form.
The input second language learners are exposed to is largely informal, fast speech in which
het is reduced. It is possible that second language learners of Dutch systematically fail to perceive het
in everyday speech as a result of the non-saliency of het. Second language learners may hear [də]
instead of [hεt] because of the many occurrences of the reduced forms [ət] and [ə] in combination with
the default status of [də], the use of [də] for all plural nouns in Dutch and the phonological saliency of
[də]. If second language learners indeed fail to perceive het, they are likely to fail to store het in the
mental lexicon and only de may be represented in the mental lexicon. The failure to represent het in
the mental lexicon may lead to an underspecification of the gender feature in second language
learners, causing them to overgeneralise de. A failure to perceive het would be a plausible explanation
for an underspecification of the grammatical gender feature in second language learners of Dutch.
As mentioned in section 2.2, the saliency of grammatical gender on determiners in the Dutch
input is very low (Cornips & Hulk, in press). Gender is only clearly visible (and perceivable) in the
opposition between de and het in the singular definite determiner and between die/deze and dat/dit in
the singular demonstrative determiner. The saliency of the contrast is further weakened by the
frequency differences between neuter and common nouns (Cornips & Hulk, in press: 22). In addition,
there are hardly any morphological and semantic regularities which could point to the gender of nouns
in Dutch and the regularities that exist have many exceptions (Donaldson, 1987: 27-33; Geerts et al.,
1984: 41-49). These circumstances, combined with the phonological non-saliency of het and the
phonological saliency of de, are disadvantageous enough to lead to perception difficulties with regard
to het.
22
The influence of phonological context on the perception and acquisition of the Dutch definite
determiners and the saliency hypothesis as proposed in this thesis have not met with experimental
research yet. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to lay a foundation for further research.
Sections 2.5.2, 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 serve to illustrate the reduction–and assimilation processes
which cause the reduction and assimilation of het and de in Dutch informal, connected speech. The
main work of reference here is Booij’s The Phonology of Dutch (1995). In connected speech,
phonological rules are often optional, as opposed to the rules of word phonology, which are obligatory
(Booij, 1995: 125). The rules of connected speech are to a large extent dependent on the linguistic
properties and environments of the segments involved. Booij notes that “it is characteristic of casual
speech that ease of production gets priority over ease of perception, because speakers can only
afford to give priority to ease of production in more informal situations” (125). As the articulatory efforts
of the speaker are reduced, reduction–and assimilation processes occur that apply across (prosodic)
word boundaries (Booij, 125-26).
2.5.2 The Cliticisation of Het and De
Cliticisation is an integral part of Dutch connected speech. Clitics can be defined as “function
words such as pronouns, determiners, auxiliaries, particles, conjunctions, and prepositions which are
phonologically dependent on a host word to which they attach, and with which they form a prosodic
constituent. In addition, they may also have special syntactic distributional properties” (Booij, 1995:
165).
Cliticisation applies to, among other things, the Dutch determiners de, het and een and a
number of /d/-initial function words, the latter mostly being demonstratives (die, dit, dat, deze). The
strong form of het, [hεt], is used in stressed position, whereas ‘t, [ət], is weak and unstressed.4 De,
[də], and een, [ən], have only one, weak form, because their only vowel is a schwa (Booij, 1995: 176).
It follows from their phonological form that the weak forms [ət], [də] and [ən] do not form prosodic
words of their own but syllables at most, because in Dutch a prosodic word requires at least one
syllable with a full vowel (Booij, 1995: 169).
The weak form [ət] is phonologically dependent on the preceding or following word in the
sentence, its host. Because [ət] does not form a prosodic word of its own, resyllabification takes place
according to the universal CV-rule. Example (1) illustrates this process.
(1) Jan kocht het boek (Jan bought the book)
Syntactically: [Jan]NP [kocht]V [‘t boek]NP
Phonologically: [jɑn] [[kɔx] [tət]] [buk]
(Booij, 1995: 165)
In example (1) the clitic [ət] induces obligatory resyllabification of the preceding word (here kocht).
Thus, the coda consonant /t/ of kocht becomes the onset of the next syllable [tət].
4
Syllables with schwa never bear word stress, and word-stress rules only apply to the prosodic word (Booij,
1995: 170).
23
The syntactic distribution of [ət] in [Jan]NP [kocht]V [‘t boek]NP, is determined by the rules for
the construction of Dutch noun phrases, i.e. [ət] syntactically depends on the following noun.
Phonologically, however, [ət] is dependent on its host, i.e. the preceding verb in [jɑn] [[kɔx] [tət]] [buk].
Thus, the syntactic structure is non-isomorphic to the prosodic structure (Booij, 1995: 165). The effect
of resyllabification is “that after incorporation of the clitic, the prosodic word fulfils all conditions on wellformed prosodic words” (Booij, 1995: 166).
The clitic [ət] is also subject to voice assimilation. The (regressive) assimilation of [ət] occurs
before voiced plosives. Example (2) illustrates this.
(2) Ik zie het beest (I see the beast)
Syntactically: [Ik]NP [zie]V [het beest]NP
Phonologically: [Ik] [zi] [ədbest]
Example (2) shows that the clitic [ət] assimilates into [əd] before the voiced plosive [b] of the following
noun. The clitic [əd] is adjoined to the noun. This process facilitates production.
Contraction processes also facilitate production. Booij gives the example of /h/-deletion. The
/h/ disappears in certain combinations, e.g. in clitic + verb combinations. If /h/-deletion would not take
place in such combinations, this would lead to ill-formed consonant clusters. For example, Ik heb (I
have) becomes [Ikεp] and Ze heeft (She has) becomes [zeft], because /kh/ and /zh/ are ill-formed.5
Mere deletion of the schwa in [zə] of Ze heeft is not possible, because this would yield the consonant
cluster /zh/. This consonant cluster causes severe production difficulties. Not all /h/-initial words are
contracted, however: Je houdt (You hold, You keep) cannot be pronounced as *[jɔut] (Booij, 1995:
180). The disappearance of /h/ in contraction is important for the present study, since /h/-deletion can
be witnessed in the cliticisation of het. Het changes from [hεt] to [ət] in consonant clusters. Example
(3) illustrates this.
(3) Ik heb het hem gezegd (lit. I have it him told, i.e. I have told it to him)
Syntactically: [Ik]NP [heb]V [het]NP [hem]NP [gezegd]V
Phonologically: [Ik] [[[hεpətəm]]] [xəzεxt]; [[[[Ikεpətəm]]]] [xəzεxt]
(Booij, 1995: 180).
Example (3) shows that the /h/ of [hət] is deleted in order to prevent the consonant cluster /bh/. The
/h/s of heb, [hεp], and hem, [həm] are also deleted, to prevent the clusters /kh/ and /th/.
The weak forms of the Dutch determiners may be encliticised, provided that a potential host
word on the left is present. Encliticisation is “the prosodic integration of function words into a left host”
(Booij, 1995: 176). An example is the enclisis of [ət] as shown by example (1) above. When there is no
potential host word on the left, however, the weak forms may be adjoined to the following prosodic
word. In this case, the word on the right serves as a host and procliticisation takes place. This is also
possible when a clitic has more than one potential host word. Booij notes that ”for clitics with more
5
Many Dutch personal pronouns, e.g. ik (I) and zij (she, they) can occur as pronominal clitics (Booij, 1995).
24
than one potential host word, encliticization is optional, and they may also procliticize to the following
word” (1995: 177). Booij also notes that Dutch schwa-containing clitic words may be either enclitics or
proclitics (1995: 174). Example (2) above illustrates the procliticisation of [ət]. Example (4) illustrates
the procliticisation of [də].
(4) Geef me de pen even (Hand me the pen, will you?)
Syntactically: [Geef]VP [me]NP [de pεn]NP [even]Adv
Phonologically: [xef] [mə] [dəpεn] [evən]
Booij observes that “proclitics have the same prosodic status as schwa-containing prefixes, and
enclitics have the same prosodic status as suffixes” (1995: 170-71). Dutch appears to prefer enclisis to
proclisis, however (Gussenhoven, 1985).
Many d-initial function words (such as the demonstratives die, dit, etc.) contain a full vowel, i.e.
they are strong forms, and as a consequence do not necessarily require a host word. The weak form
[də], however, does need a host word. Example (5) illustrates the encliticisation of [də].
(5) Hij leest de krant (He reads the newspaper)
Syntactically: [Hij]NP [leest]V [de krant]NP
Phonologically: [hei] [[lestə]] [krɑnt]
(Booij, 1995: 177).
Example (5) shows that [də] becomes [tə] due to (progressive) voice-assimilation after voiceless
obstruents.
Another case in which [də] procliticises is when the schwa of [də] is deleted before vowels and
the [d] is adjoined to the following word. Example (6) illustrates this.
(6) De aarde is een bol (The earth is a globe)
Syntactically: [De aarde]NP [is]V [een bol]NP
Phonologically: [dardə] [Izən] [bɔl]
The phenomenon of schwa-deletion before vowels as illustrated in example (6) is relatively rare in
Dutch, however.
25
2.5.3 T-deletion in Het
Another phenomenon in Dutch connected speech of relevance to the present study is /t/deletion. T-deletion in Dutch typically occurs in fast speech, but may also occur in more formal speech.
The rule of t-deletion is rather complicated and here we can limit ourselves to t-deletion across phrasal
boundaries. Booij states: ”Across phrasal boundaries, /t/-deletion is possible if both the preceding and
the following consonants are obstruents, less probable after or before a nasal consonant, and even
less probable before liquids and glides” (1995: 153). Consequently, /t/-deletion takes place in Wint
Piet? (Does Pete win?): [‫ט‬Inpit], but not in Zakt Ria? (Does Ria fail?): *[zɑkrija] (Booij, 1995: 154).6
T-deletion is very important for the present study, because [hεt] ends in /t/. Following Booij
(1995), the /t/ of [hεt] may be deleted in informal speech when the preceding and following consonants
are obstruents or, in some cases, nasals. In the case of het, the preceding and following consonants
belong to the coda of the preceding word and the onset of the following word, since the /h/ of [hεt]
disappears in consonant clusters to prevent ill-formedness, thereby yielding the clitic [ət] (see section
2.5.2 above). As a consequence, after /t/-deletion only the schwa of [ət] remains:
(7) Zij eet verrukt het taartje op.
(lit. She eats delightedly the cake up.
i.e. She delightedly eats up the cake).
Phonology: [vərʏktətartʃə]
(8) Oma rent aangedaan het tehuis uit.
(lit. Grandmother runs emotionally the home out of.
i.e. Grandmother emotionally runs out of the home).
Phonology: [anxədanəʔtəhœys]; [anxədanətəhœys] 7
(9) Hij springt gemakkelijk het perron af.
(lit. He jumps easily the platform off.
i.e. He easily jumps off the platform)
Phonology: [xəmɑkələkətpərɔn]; [xəmɑkələkəʔpərɔn]; [xəmɑkələkəpərɔn]
Our research team has concluded that het is especially difficult to perceive in fast speech in
contexts such as shown in examples (7) and (8), i.e. in contexts where the following word begins in /t/.
In such contexts, the /t/ of het is always deleted as a result of degemination. In addition, /h/-deletion
takes place to prevent consonant clusters. Thus, only the schwa [ə] of het remains. Of these contexts,
especially the contexts as shown in example (7) render het difficult to perceive. Due to the contraction
of [hεt] to mere [ə], het may sound as [tə] after a word-final /t/. As pointed out in section 2.5.2, [tə]
6
For more information on /t/-deletion in Dutch, see Goeman (1999) and Mitterer & Ernestus (2006). Globally, the
same claims are made here as in Booij (1995).
7
The glottal stop [ʔ] is not a separate phoneme in Dutch, but is inserted before vowel-initial syllables within words
after /a/ and /ə/ and often also at the beginning of a word (Jongenburger & van Heuven, 1991).
26
occurs as an encliticised form of [də]. Because de is the default and de is used for all Dutch plural
nouns, this makes the perception of het extra difficult for second language learners.
2.5.4 Summary
Table 2 in section 2.5.1 shows that phonological context influences the pronunciation of both
het and de, and that both undergo reduction in informal speech. However, het mostly occurs in its
reduced (non-salient) form, whereas de mostly occurs in its unreduced (salient) form. It was stated
that the phonological non-saliency of het, the phonological saliency of de and the frequency difference
between common and neuter nouns (de is the default and de is used for all plural nouns in Dutch) may
cause a misperception of het in second language learners. A misperception of het may lead to a
failure to represent het in the mental lexicon, which may lead to an underspecification of the
grammatical gender feature in second language learners, causing them to overgeneralise de. This
proposal is put forward as the saliency hypothesis in section 2.5.1.
Sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 outline the reduction–and assimilation processes which cause the
reduction and assimilation of het and de in Dutch informal, connected speech. The phonological
processes which affect the clitics de and het are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3 The phonological processes affecting the clitics [də] and [ət]
Phon. processes
De
Het
1. resyllabification
-
+
2. voice-assimilation
+
+
3. schwa-deletion before vowels
+
-
4. /h/-deletion
-
+
5. /t/-deletion
-
+
Table 3 illustrates that het is affected by all of the processes except 3 (schwa-deletion before vowels).
De, on the other hand, is only affected by processes 2 and 3. Dutch native speaker listeners who have
knowledge of the phonological processes affecting the clitics [də] and [ət] may supplement the missing
information when they are confronted with ambiguous sentences such as presented in section 2.5.2
and 2.5.3. Moreover, their lexical knowledge helps them in this respect. Second language learners,
however, generally have fewer lexical knowledge than native speakers and are often unfamiliar with
the phonology of Dutch. Consequently, ambiguous sentences are difficult for them. In a perception
experiment with nonce nouns such as the current experiment, the lexical knowledge of native
speakers and second language learners is of no use, and they can only fall back on their phonological
knowledge.
27
3 The Present Study
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter the present study is introduced. The present study investigates the role of the
non-saliency of het in the acquisition of grammatical gender by second language learners of Dutch. As
discussed in section 2.5, the way in which het and de are realised in spontaneous speech is for a
large part dependent on the phonological context, which renders het non-salient on a regular basis.
These circumstances may cause het to be missed in perception, thus leading to persistent acquisition
difficulties.
In order to test whether het is perceived despite its non-saliency, our research team has
designed a perception experiment. In the experiment, second language learners of Dutch and native
speakers of Dutch have to indicate whether they hear de or het. See Chapter 4 for a full outline of the
perception experiment.
In an additional gender assignment task, our research team also tests the gender production
capacities of the second language learners. In this task, the participants have to assign the correct
gender (de or het) to given nouns of high and medium frequency. See Chapter 5 for a full outline of
the production task.
The perception experiment is the main experiment of this study. The production task serves to
gain an additional insight into the way the Dutch definite determiners are produced.
This chapter is organised as follows. Section 3.2 addresses the research questions and
section 3.3 formulates the hypotheses. Section 3.4 states the predictions to the hypotheses.
3.2 Research Questions
The research questions follow from the general question of why Dutch neuter gender is so
difficult to learn for second language learners (see section 2.4). The main research questions are the
following.
Research questions
(1) Can second language learners of Dutch perceive the difference between het and de
in the perception experiment or do they fail to perceive het? Does the performance of
the second language learners significantly differ from that of the Dutch native speaker
control group? Does phonological context have an influence on perception?
(2) Can second language learners of Dutch correctly produce gender (de and het)? That
is, do the second language learners of Dutch produce de and het correctly or do they
overgeneralise? If they overgeneralise, in what way do they overgeneralise? Do they
use de as the default?
28
The study by Unsworth (in press) suggests that lengthy and intensive exposure should lead to
more targetlike responses in second language learners of Dutch grammatical gender. Thus, sufficient
input is necessary. Unsworth focuses on production. It is possible, however, to extend her proposal to
perception. Following Unsworth, a third research question can be posed.
(3) Is there evidence for an effect of length and intensity of exposure in the second
language learners' perception of het? That is, do second language learners who have
had lengthy and intensive exposure to Dutch hear het better than second language
learners who have had little exposure to Dutch?
3.3 Hypotheses
The research questions in section 3.2 lead to hypotheses. The hypotheses can be formulated
as follows.
Hypotheses
(1) With respect to the first and main research question, I hypothesise that second
language learners of Dutch will fail to perceive het on a regular basis. The second
language learners will regularly perceive de for het. The performance of the second
language learners will significantly differ from that of the Dutch native speaker control
group, as the natives will perceive het significantly better than the second language
learners. Het will more often be missed in perception than de. Both the second
language learners and the Dutch native speakers will perceive de significantly better
than het. With respect to the influence of phonological context, the following
hierarchy of difficulty can be hypothesised: het will be more difficult to perceive when
followed by consonants than when followed by vowels, and more difficult to perceive
when followed by /t/ than when followed by other consonants. Both the second
language learners and the Dutch control group will especially have difficulties with
the t-het-t contexts.
This hypothesis is based on the following facts. As discussed in section 2.5, het
systematically features as a non-salient form in Dutch spontaneous speech as a result
of its phonological context, whereas de mainly occurs in its salient form. As noted in
section 4.4.4 below, het systematically features as non-salient [ət] and [ə] in the
perception experiment. De occurs in the same phonological contexts as het and may
also undergo reduction, e.g. voice assimilation, but de mainly features as salient [də].
The second language learners are expected to be affected by the non-saliency of het,
failing to perceive het on a regular basis. Because de is mostly salient, the second
language learners are expected to be able to perceive de. The second language
learners will perceive de instead of het because of the phonological saliency of de and
their knowledge of the frequency difference between common and neuter nouns in
29
Dutch. The Dutch control group will also have difficulties with the perception of het,
but they have phonological knowledge of the processes listed in Table 3. Because the
second language learners do not have this knowledge, they will not be able to detect
the effects of /t/-deletion, etc, and thus perception will be more difficult for them. As
pointed out in section 2.5.3, when the consonants preceding and following het are
obstruents or nasals, both /h/-and /t/-deletion may occur, only leaving [ə] for het.
Moreover, the consonant immediately preceding this [ə] is subject to resyllabification.
Taking into account Booij's observation that /t/-deletion is improbable before liquids
and glides, our research team assumes that /t/-deletion will certainly not occur before
vowels, and that the phonological contrast between [də] and [ət] is maximally clear in
this case. When het is followed by a /t/, the /t/ of het is always deleted as a result of
degemination. When also /h/-deletion occurs (i.e. in about 90% of the cases, see
Table 2, section 2.5.1), only the schwa [ə] of het remains. Of these contexts,
especially the t-het-t contexts are difficult to perceive. Due to the contraction of [hεt] to
mere [ə], het may sound as [tə] after a word-final /t/. As pointed out in section 2.5.2,
[tə] occurs as an encliticised form of [də]. Not only the second language learners, but
also the Dutch native speakers will find this extremely confusing.
(2) With respect to the second research question, I hypothesise that many of the second
language learners of Dutch will show non-targetlike behaviour in the production task.
They will mainly overgeneralise de, but they may also use het with common nouns.
Learners who have had lengthy and intensive exposure to Dutch may show targetlike
behaviour on de and het, however. With lengthy and intensive exposure to Dutch, 12
years or more intensive exposure is meant here. The importance of length of
exposure will also become visible in a frequency effect, i.e. the participants will
perform better on the high-frequency nouns than on the medium-frequency nouns.
This hypothesis is based on the following facts. As discussed in section 2.4, second
language learners of Dutch have serious problems with the acquisition of the definite
determiners. In production studies, they show a delay as compared to native speakers
of Dutch, as well as signs of fossilisation in a non-targetlike stage of acquisition (Hulk
& Cornips 2006a,b; Cornips et al., 2006; Cornips & Hulk, in press; Blom et al., in
press; Unsworth, in press). Second language learners of Dutch mainly overgeneralise
de but they do not exclusively use de as the default, they rather make errors in both
directions (Cornips et al., 2006; Unsworth, in press). As noted in section 2.3, the
acquisition of gender is for a large part word learning (Carroll, 1989: 567). In the
absence of morphophonological and semantic gender cues, the gender for each noun
has to be acquired individually (Unsworth, in press). Gender assignment in Dutch is
largely random, and as noted in section 2.2, there are hardly any morphological and
semantic regularities which could point to the gender of Dutch nouns. Consequently,
30
learners need to have sufficient input to be able to acquire a targetlike grammatical
gender system (Unsworth, in press). Anderson (1999) and Umbel & Oller (1995) also
note that a reduced input can greatly affect the lexical development of bilinguals. How
much input is needed exactly is still unknown. Unsworth (in press) tentatively
suggests that second language learners of Dutch need at least 12 years of intensive
exposure in order to acquire a targetlike grammatical gender system. The more
exposure a learner has had, however, the more targetlike he/she can be expected to
perform. Sabourin (2003) has found that second language learners of Dutch produce
the targetlike determiner more often for high frequency nouns than for low frequency
nouns.
(3) With respect to the third, additional research question, I hypothesise that the second
language learners who have had lengthy and intensive exposure to Dutch will
perceive het better than second language learners who have had little exposure to
Dutch. Again, with lengthy and intensive exposure to Dutch, 12 years or more
intensive exposure is meant here.
This hypothesis is based on the following facts. The study by Unsworth (in press)
suggests that lengthy and intensive exposure may lead to more targetlike responses
in second language learners of Dutch grammatical gender. Unsworth (in press)
suggests that a minimum of 12 years of intensive exposure is needed. Thus, sufficient
input appears to be crucial for the acquisition of a targetlike grammatical gender
system (Unsworth, in press). Unsworth’s study focuses on lexical development and
production. It is possible (and likely) that a lengthy and intensive exposure to Dutch
also leads to a better perception of Dutch neuter gender (het), since in order to be
able to produce (neuter) gender one first ought to perceive (neuter) gender.
The following should also be considered. The previous studies show that second
language learners of Dutch systematically overgeneralise de and have problems with
the acquisition of het (Hulk & Cornips 2006a,b; Cornips et al., 2006; Blom et al., in
press; Unsworth, in press; Cornips & Hulk, in press; Brouwer et al., in press). As
pointed out above, het systematically features as a non-salient form in Dutch. De, on
the other hand, has a default status, is used for plural nouns and is phonologically
salient. As a consequence, second language learners of Dutch have very little
exposure to neuter het in everyday speech, while exposure to de is frequent. The
overgeneralisation of de and the problems with het could be the result of frequent
exposure to de as opposed to little exposure to het, i.e. exposure could be the crucial
factor. This would also imply that if second language learners hear enough exemplars
of het in non-salient contexts (however 'enough' may be), they should, in principle, be
able to acquire this aspect of Dutch.
31
3.4 Predictions
Predictions to the hypotheses in section 3.3 can be made. The predictions can be formulated
as follows.
Predictions
(1) With respect to the first hypothesis, I predict that the second language learners of
Dutch will systematically fail to perceive het in the perception experiment, perceiving
de instead. Because the second language learners will systematically choose de
when in fact het occurs, in a sense, they can be said to ‘overgeneneralise’ de in
perception. The Dutch native speaker control group will perceive het significantly
better than the second language learners. Het will more often be missed in perception
than de, and both the second language learners and the Dutch control group will
perceive de significantly better than het. With respect to the influence of phonological
context, the following hierarchy of difficulty can be predicted: het will be more difficult
to perceive when followed by consonants than when followed by vowels, and more
difficult to perceive when followed by /t/ than when followed by other consonants. Both
the second language learners and the Dutch control group will especially have
difficulties with the t-het-t contexts.
(2) With respect to the second hypothesis, I predict that the second language learners of
Dutch will mainly overgeneralise de. They will show signs of using het with common
nouns as well, however. The learners who have had long and intensive exposure (i.e.
12 years or more intensive exposure to Dutch) will produce the targetlike determiner
significantly more often than learners who have had little exposure. This will be the
case for both de and het. The participants will also produce the high frequency nouns
significantly better than the low frequency nouns.
(3) With respect to the third hypothesis, I predict that the second language learners who
have had lengthy and intensive exposure (i.e. 12 years or more intensive exposure to
Dutch) will perceive het significantly better than those second language learners who
have had little exposure to Dutch. Thus, the learners who have had lengthy and
intensive exposure will choose de less often when in fact het occurs. There will be a
significant difference in performance between the two groups.
The hypotheses and predictions as stated in this chapter will be tested by means of a
perception experiment and a production task. Chapter 4 describes the perception experiment and
Chapter 5 describes the production task.
32
4 The Perception Experiment
4.1 Introduction
As discussed in Chapter 2, the acquisition of grammatical gender has proven to be seriously
problematic for second language learners (Carroll, 1989; Dewaele & Veronique, 2001; Bruhn de
Garavito & White, 2002; Franceschina, 2005 on Romance languages; Rogers, 1987 on German;
Andersson, 1992; Hyltenstam, 1992 on Swedish). This is also the case for the acquisition of Dutch
grammatical gender. Second language learners of Dutch show a delay as compared to monolingual
first language acquirers of Dutch, and even show signs of fossilisation in the non-targetlike stage of
overgeneralisation (Hulk & Cornips 2006a,b; Cornips et al., 2006; Brouwer et al., in press; Cornips &
Hulk, in press; Blom et al., in press; Unsworth, in press). In line with Van der Velde (2004), who
focuses on monolingual first language acquisition, Hulk & Cornips (2006b), Cornips & Hulk (in press)
and Brouwer et al. (in press) propose that the reason for second language learners' difficulties with
Dutch grammatical gender may be an underspecification of the gender feature in second language
learners, i.e. they are aware of gender but do not have a complete knowledge and do not know the
right gender specification (yet).
In this thesis, it is proposed that an underspecification of the gender feature may be caused by
the non-saliency of het (saliency hypothesis). As discussed in section 2.5, het, phonologically [hεt],
varies depending on its phonological context in informal, connected speech (see Booij, 1995). As a
result of its phonological context, het is more often than not reduced to [ət] and occasionally to [ə] in
informal speech. These circumstances render het difficult to perceive. In addition, de, phonologically
[də], has a default status, [də] is used for all plural nouns in Dutch and [də] is phonologically salient. A
possible failure to perceive het is likely to lead to a failure to store het in the mental lexicon, which may
lead to an underspecification of the gender feature in second language learners.
In this chapter, the saliency hypothesis as proposed in Chapter 2 is tested by means of a
perception experiment. Our research team has designed an experiment which tests whether het is
perceived despite its non-saliency.
This chapter is organised as follows. Section 4.2 discusses the questionnaires presented to
the second language learners and the Dutch native speaker control group. Section 4.3 introduces the
participants taking part in the experiment. Section 4.4 describes the experimental design and section
4.5 outlines the method. Section 4.6 outlines the goal of the C-test. Section 4.7 presents the results.
33
4.2 The Questionnaire
4.2.1 The Second Language Learners
Using a questionnaire is standardised procedure in linguistic experimenting. In his handbook
Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration and Processing (2003)
Dörnyei observes that
The popularity of questionnaires in data-collection for second language research is
due to their easy construction, versatility, and quick processing by means of either
quantitative or qualitative methods. Indeed, the frequency of use of self-report
questionnaires in the L2 field is surpassed only by language proficiency tests (back
cover).
Our research team has constructed a questionnaire for the second language learners of Dutch
gender. This questionnaire is used to collect various data. Many personal characteristics of the second
language learners are of importance for the current study, for example their ages, other second
languages they have learnt, their lengths of stay in The Netherlands, the amount of exposure to Dutch
they have received, etc.
The questionnaire is provided in Appendix 5. In section A of the questionnaire general
information is elicited such as name, gender, date of birth, country of birth, the year in which the
participants have moved to The Netherlands and their highest education. Section B is on language
proficiency. The participants are asked about their mother tongue, other languages they speak beside
English and Dutch and the age at which they have started to learn these other languages. They are
also asked whether they have followed Dutch language lessons and, if they have, at what level. In
section C the participants are asked about their daily language use (Dutch, English) in various
situations (at home, at school, at work, etc.). Section D is the production task, and section E features a
language proficiency test (C-test). The production task is fully discussed in Chapter 5.
The participants were asked to fill in sections A, B and C of the questionnaire before the
perception experiment was started. The production task and the C-test, however, were given
afterwards. Immediately after the participants had filled in the questionnaire, the perception experiment
was started. The questionnaire took the subjects approximately 5 minutes. The time spent depended
on individual speed.
4.2.2 The Dutch Native Speaker Control Group
Our research team has also constructed a questionnaire for the Dutch native speaker control
group. This questionnaire asks about the age, gender, data of birth, mother tongue and education of
the Dutch native speakers and is provided in Appendix 6.
The Dutch native speaker participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire before the
perception experiment was started.
34
4.3 Participants
Thirty-four second language learners of Dutch with English as their native language and fifteen
native Dutch speaker control subjects participated in the perception experiment.8 The reasons why our
research team decided to test native speakers of English is that English does not have grammatical
gender and that this will yield data which can be compared to earlier obtained production data (see
e.g. Unsworth, in press).
The group of second language learners consists of males (N = 15) and females (N = 19). The
Dutch control group also consists of males (N = 7) and females (N = 8). The second language learners
are all adults, i.e. all ages are above 18 years. The bulk of the Dutch control group also consists of
adults, but one teenager of 16 years is included. The ages of the participants are given in Table 4.
Table 4 Ages of the participants (in years and months)
Second language learners
(N = 34)
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Minimum
19;5
15;11
Maximum
62;10
57;0
Mean
39;0
32;6
Std. Deviation
11;4
13;3
All participants, the English native speakers as well as the Dutch native speakers, have been
raised monolingually. Bilingual subjects have been excluded.9
All English native speakers have learnt Dutch as a second language, i.e. after the age of about
10 years, which is generally considered to be after the critical period for language acquisition. This
idea is based on Lenneberg (1964, 1967), who states that learning a language natively becomes
difficult after a certain age, certainly after the onset of puberty (see also Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson,
2003 for a recent discussion). Age of first exposure to Dutch is given in Table 5.
Table 5 The second language learners' ages of first exposure to Dutch (in years and months)
Age of first exposure to Dutch
Minimum
8,10
Maximum
41;6
Mean
24;3
Std. Deviation
9;0
Many of the English native speakers can speak several other languages besides Dutch,
mostly French and German. However, all participants have learnt these other languages as a second
language, i.e. after the age of about 10 years (the bottom line of age of first exposure to French and
German is 11;0 years for both languages). Moreover, most of the second language learners who have
8
Initially, 35 second language learners of Dutch would be tested instead of 34, but it turned out that one
participant had been raised bilingually, i.e. partly in German. This participant was excluded from the experiment.
9
When testing bilinguals all of the languages they have been raised in should be taken into account. A person
raised both in English and German has knowledge of a gender system similar to the Dutch gender system. This
could have an influence on their perception and production of Dutch grammatical gender.
35
knowledge of other languages besides Dutch have not learnt these languages extensively, often only
in secondary school.
The second language learners’ lengths of stay in The Netherlands are provided in Table 6.
Table 6 The second language learners’ lengths of stay in The Netherlands (in years and months)
Length of stay
Minimum
0;4
Maximum
31;0
Mean
12;8
Std. Deviation
9;3
Table 7 shows the second language learners spread over groups with respect to their lengths of
stay in The Netherlands.
Table 7 The second language learners' lengths of stay in The Netherlands (in years and months):
groups
Groups
Length of stay
Number of second language learners
Group 1
Less than 12 years
18
(Range: 0;4 years - 8;10 years)
Group 2
More than 12 years
16
(Range: 12;0 years - 31;0 years)
This division is based on Unsworth (in press), who suggests that second language learners of Dutch
grammatical gender need a minimum of 12 years of intensive exposure in order to become targetlike.
For some of the second language learners, their lengths of exposure to Dutch differ
considerably from their lengths of stay in The Netherlands. These participants have married a Dutch
person in their country of birth and/or have followed Dutch language lessons prior to their coming to
The Netherlands. The second language learners’ lengths of exposure to Dutch are given in Table 8.
Table 8 The second language learners’ lengths of exposure to Dutch (in years and months)
Length of exposure
Minimum
3;6
Maximum
30;6
Mean
14;9
Std. Deviation
9;3
Table 9 below shows the second language learners spread over groups with respect to their
lengths of exposure to Dutch. Again, this division is based on Unsworth (in press), who suggests that
second language learners of Dutch grammatical gender need to have had at least 12 years of
intensive exposure in order to become targetlike.
36
Table 9 The second language learner's lengths of exposure to Dutch (in years and months): groups
Groups
Group 1
Length of exposure
Number of second language learners
Less than 12 years
15
(Range: 3;6 years - 10;5 years)
Group 2
More than 12 years
19
(Range: 12;0 years - 30;6 years)
It is important to make the distinction between length of stay in The Netherlands and length of
exposure to Dutch, because three individuals who have only resided in The Netherlands for a short
time (i.e. 0;4 years, 0;9 years and 3;4 years respectively) turn out to have had exposure to Dutch for
as long as 17;10 years, 30;0 years and 18;2 years respectively. These individuals are included in
Group 2 in Table 9.
As the ages, lengths of stay in The Netherlands and lengths of exposure to Dutch of the
second language learners show, there is a great variability among the participants. There is also a
great variability in their daily occupations, but nearly all participants are highly educated: they are
university teachers, PhD students, students in university, consulate and embassy employees, etc. All
participants reside in the urbanised west of The Netherlands called the Randstad in Dutch. They have
all come to The Netherlands for a permanent or prolonged stay. The data collected in Section C of the
questionnaire reveal that all participants use Dutch on a daily basis, often alongside English.
The monolingual Dutch control subjects also reside in the Randstad. They are mostly family
and friends of the researchers, and they, too, for the large part, are highly educated.
All subjects, both monolinguals and second language learners, are of normal mental capacity
and do not show signs of linguistic impairments. They also have normal hearing capacity.
4.4 Experimental Design: Stimuli
4.4.1 Introduction
The chosen task is a computerised audio-visual identification task. The participants hear 108
Dutch test sentences in which nonce nouns occur. For each sentence, the nonce noun in that
sentence appears on the screen. The nonce nouns in the sentences are linked to determiners, and
manner adverbs are placed immediately before the determiners. Thus, the phonological contexts of
the determiners are formed by the final phonemes of the manner adverbs and the initial phonemes of
the nonce nouns. The participants have to indicate which determiner they hear and how certain they
are of their answer. Examples 10 to 13 show some of the sentences used in the experiment.
(10) Zij verlaat ingezakt het tef en kijkt niet meer om.
(lit. She leaves bent the tef and does look not anymore back.
i.e. She leaves the tef with her back bent and does not look back anymore.)
37
(11) Hij test nieuwsgierig het ies uit op zijn werk.
(lit. He tests curiously the ies out at work.
i.e. He curiously tests out the ies at work.)
(12) Bang voor infecties, riep zij angstig de tieg terug.
(lit. Afraid of infections, called she frightened the tieg back.
i.e. She was afraid of infections, and called back the tieg.)
(13) Suzanne kuste stiekem de ump tijdens wiskundeles.
(lit. Suzanne kissed stealthily the ump during math class.
i.e. Suzanne stealthily kissed the ump during math class.)
In Chapter 3, section 3.3, it is hypothesised that het will be more difficult to perceive when
followed by consonants than when followed by vowels, and more difficult to perceive when followed by
/t/ than when followed by other consonants. In order to test this hypothesis, the consonants and
vowels as mentioned in sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 below are used as phonological contexts. Note that
de occurs in the same contexts as het and may also undergo reduction, e.g. voice assimilation.The
phonological contexts used are a representative imitation of the natural contexts in which the
determiners may occur.
Section 4.3.2 describes the conditions on the nonce nouns and section 4.3.3 outlines the
conditions on the manner adverbs. Section 4.3.4 provides examples of the cliticisation of het and de in
the experiment. Section 4.3.5 describes the fillers and section 4.3.6 gives a schematic and a numerical
distribution of the nonce nouns across the contexts.
4.4.2 The Nonce Nouns
Nonce nouns are used in the experiment because the focus of the experiment is on the
perception of the definite determiners only. Using existing nouns might influence the perception of the
second language learners because of their lexical knowledge.
As previously noted in section 2.5.3, Booij states that /t/-deletion across phrasal boundaries is
possible if both the preceding and the following consonants are obstruents. T-deletion is also possible,
but less probable, after or before a nasal consonant. T-deletion is even less probable before liquids
and glides (Booij, 1995: 153). Following Booij, it can be assumed that the /t/ of [hεt] is deleted when
the preceding and the following consonants are obstruents or, to a lesser extent, nasal consonants.
Therefore, our research team has chosen to use nonce nouns with the initial stops /p/, /t/ and /k/. In
addition, our research team has chosen to use nonce nouns with initial vowels, in order to create
contexts in which the phonological difference between de and het should be maximally clear. Taking
into account Booij's observation that /t/-deletion is improbable before liquids and glides, our research
team assumes that t-deletion will certainly not occur before vowels. The initial phonemes of the nonce
38
nouns have been chosen in cooperation with Prof. Dr. René Kager of the Utrecht Institute of
Linguistics OTS (Utrecht University), who is specialised in phonology.
Thus, the plosives /p/, /t/ and /k/ are used as the initial phonemes of the nonce nouns, as well
as the vowels /a/, /ɑ/, /e/, /ε/, /ø/, /I/, /i/, /εi/, /ɔ/, /u/, /o/, /ɔu/, /œy/, /ʏ/ and /y/. This is the complete
inventory of Dutch vowels, monophthongs as well as diphthongs, except for /ə/ (schwa) because this
is not a full vowel. For a complete inventory see Booij (1995).
Because het is especially difficult to perceive in fast speech when the following word begins in
/t/ (e.g. in t-het-t contexts, see section 2.5.3), the bulk of the nonce nouns with initial plosives in the
perception experiment has initial /t/. The number of nonce nouns used for each context (initial /t/, /k/,
/p/ and vowel) is given in Table 10.
Table 10 The distribution of the nonce nouns across the sentences
initial /t/
initial /k/
initial /p/
initial vowel
total
35
18
18
37
108
Initially, a more logical distribution of the nonce nouns was planned, namely 36 nonce nouns
with initial /t/, 18 nonce nouns with initial /k/, 18 nonce nouns with initial /p/ and 36 nonce nouns with
initial vowel. Due to a typing error, however, while programming the experiment in PRAAT, tirf
unfortunately lost its /t/ and became irf. As a consequence, one additional nonce noun with an initial
vowel was created, and one less with initial /t/.
A full overview of the constructed nonce nouns is given in Appendix 1. The nonce nouns
designed for the experiment are all monosyllabic nouns with CVC and CVCC (plosive-initial, e.g. taaf,
kacht, pank) and VC and VCC (vowel-initial, e.g. aag, eft) syllable structures.
All nonce nouns were checked with a reliable online dictionary (van Dale) to make sure that
they are indeed nonce nouns and not, accidentally, existent nouns. In addition, the lexical
neighbourhoods of the nonce nouns were checked in the Dutch CELEX lexicon (Baayen, Piepenbrock
& Van Rijn, 1993) to see whether they (closely) resemble existent nouns, thereby possibly causing
gender bias. Certain nonce nouns indeed resemble existing nouns: taaf, for example, resembles taak
(task) and taal (language). Most lexical neighbours are de-words, simply because there are more dethan het-words in Dutch. Because it is not certain that participants will think of existing words when
they hear, for example, taaf, the nonce nouns have not been changed. Instead, our research team has
decided to run a post hoc test if the results prove to be conspicuously odd.
As an additional measure to test the reliability of the nonce nouns, the list of nouns was given
to a group of 33 native speakers of Dutch who do not take part in the experiment as controls. These
native speakers were asked to indicate their gender bias for each nonce noun. The results of this
procedure show a strong preference for de (87,04 % de vs. 12,96% het). This was to be expected,
because de is the default in Dutch. The findings clearly point to a default strategy and reflect the
distribution of de vs. het words in the language as a whole. If the results had been very different,
showing, for example, a strong preference for het in the native speakers, this might also be the case
for the second language learners of Dutch. Such a gender bias could influence the perception of the
39
second language learners. However, the results of this small gender elicitation task show nothing
extraordinary, which also suggests that the nonce nouns can be used in the experiment.
4.4.3 The Manner Adverbs
As pointed out in section 2.5.2, the weak form [ət] is phonologically dependent on the
preceding word in the sentence, its host. As its phonology shows, [ət] cannot form a prosodic word of
its own, because [ət] does not contain a full vowel. The clitic [ət] is phonologically dependent on its
host, and
induces obligatory resyllabification of the preceding or following word. To further the
cliticisation and resyllabification of het in the perception experiment, suitable phonemes have been
placed at the end of the manner adverbs before the determiners. As noted in sections 2.5.3 and 4.3.2
above, the /t/ of [hεt] may be deleted when the preceding and the following consonants are obstruents
or, in some cases, nasal consonants (Booij, 1995: 153). Therefore, the phonemes used for the
endings of the manner adverbs are /t/, /k/, /m/, /n/ and /x/. These phonemes further the enclisis of [ət],
which results in resyllabification: [-tət], [-kət], [-mət], [-nət] and [-xət]. Thus, the manner adverbs serve
as hosts for the clitics. As with the choice of the initial phonemes of the nonce nouns, the final
phonemes of the manner adverbs have been chosen in cooperation with Prof. Dr. René Kager of the
Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS (Utrecht University).
As noted in section 2.5.3 above, het is especially difficult to perceive in fast speech when the
preceding word ends in /t/ and the following word begins in /t/ (t-het-t context). Therefore, relatively
many of the manner adverbs used in the experiment have final /t/. The number of manner adverbs
used for each context (final /t/, /k/, /m/, /n/ and /x/) is represented in Table 11.
Table 11 The distribution of the manner adverbs across the sentences
final /t/
final /k/
final /m/
final /n/
final /x/
total
36
18
18
18
18
108
A full overview of the constructed manner adverbs and their English translation is given in Appendix 2.
4.4.4 The Cliticisation of Het and De in the Experiment
Examples of the test sentences with het and de are given below. All of the sentences feature
in the experiment. The examples show how the final phonemes of the manner adverbs and the initial
phonemes of the nonce nouns elicit the cliticisation of het and de in the experiment.
(14) Zij verlaat ingezakt het tef en kijkt niet meer om.
(lit. She leaves bent the tef and does look not anymore back.
i.e. She leaves the tef with her back bent and does not look back anymore.)
Phonology: [Inxəzɑktətεf]
40
(15) Hij ving behendig het tiemp op, zodat er geen schade was.
(lit. He caught dexterously the tiemp, so there no damage was.
i.e. He dexterously caught the tiemp, thereby preventing damage.)
Phonology: [bəhεndəxətimp]
(16) Veel leerlingen bestuderen moeizaam het purt voor vrijdag.
(lit. Many students study laboriously the purt for Friday.
i.e. Many students laboriously study the purt for Friday.)
Phonology: [mujzamətpʏrt]; [mujzaməʔpʏrt]; [mujzaməpʏrt]
(17) Bang voor infecties, riep zij angstig de tieg terug.
(lit. Afraid of infections, called she frightened the tieg back.
i.e. She was afraid of infections, and called back the tieg.)
Phonology: [ɑŋstəx] [dətix]
(18) Zij lachte zeer aanstekelijk de tilk toe.
(lit. She laughed very infectiously the tilk at.
i.e. She laughed very infectiously at the tilk.)
Phonology: [anstekələk] [dətIlk]; [anstekələk] [tətIlk]
(19) Hij begon verhit de kacht te slaan.
(lit. He began heatedly the kacht to hit.
i.e. He heatedly began to hit the kacht.)
Phonology: [vərhItəkɑxt]
The examples show that the consonant immediately preceding [ət] is often subject to resyllabification,
and that [də] sometimes assimilates into [tə].
When constructing the test sentences, our research team made sure that only one determiner
occurs in every sentence. Relative clauses (het meisje dat; the girl that), expletive pronouns (het
regent; it rains) and personal pronouns (ik zag het zonet nog; I saw it just now) were avoided. A full
overview of the test sentences, which all have the same overall syntax with the nonce nouns placed in
object position, is given in Appendix 3. English translations of the test sentences are also provided.
As a final measure, to check whether [hεt] is indeed reduced in the test sentences, the
sentences were read out loud by our research team. It was found that in natural speech [hεt] is indeed
reduced to [ət] or [ə] in all of the test sentences featuring het. De, however, systematically features as
[də] and occasionally as [tə] due to assimilation.
41
4.4.5 The Fillers
As fillers, our research team has used the gender-specific demonstratives deze, die, dit and
dat (see section 2.2. on the Dutch grammatical gender system) in the perception experiment.
The demonstratives are also used to check whether the second language learners of Dutch
have a problem with Dutch gender as such or not. It is possible that second language learners have a
general problem with Dutch gender. We do not expect this to be so, however, because a test with the
forms [ət] and [ə] causes more ambiguity than a test with e.g. [d It] and [dɑt]. Example sentences with
the fillers are provided below. All of the example sentences feature in the experiment.
(20) Op Kerstavond zingen zij vreedzaam dat uuk toe.
(lit. On Christmas Eve sing they peacefully that uuk for.
i.e. On Christmas Eve they peacefully sing for that uuk.)
Phonology: [vretzam] [dɑt] [ʔyk]
(21) Een visagist bracht geleidelijk deze polt aan op haar gezicht.
(lit. A make-up artist applied gradually this polt to her face.
i.e. A make-up artist gradually applied this polt to her face.)
Phonology: [xəlɛidəlʏk] [dezə] [pɔlt]; [xəlɛidəlʏk] [tezə] [pɔlt]
(22) Wij proberen bewust die arf te negeren.
(lit. We try deliberately that arf to ignore.
i.e. We deliberately try to ignore that arf.)
Phonology: [bəwʏsti] [ʔɑrf]
(23) Moeder komt verrukt dit tarp binnen en gaat alles bekijken.
(lit. Mother comes enrapturedly this tarp into and begins to everything examine.
i.e. Mother enters this tarp in an enraptured state and begins to examine everything.)
Phonology: [vərʏktIt] [ʔtɑrp]; [vərʏktItɑrp]
(24) Voor zijn afstuderen heeft Michel enthousiast dit ift ontworpen.
(lit. For his graduation has Michel enthusiastically this ift designed.
i.e. Michel has enthusiastically designed this ift for his graduation.)
Phonology: [ɛntusjɑstIt] [ʔIft]; [ɛntusjɑstItIft]
The examples above show that, in some cases, the demonstratives undergo assimilation. It is
rather assimilation than cliticisation that is witnessed here, because (as pointed out in section 2.5.2)
the demonstratives die, deze, dit and dat all contain a full vowel, i.e. they are strong forms, and as a
42
consequence do not necessarily require a host word. As with the sentences with het and de, our
research team has read out loud the sentences with the demonstratives. It was found that, despite
occasional assimilation, the demonstratives remain clearly audible. The following section outlines the
distribution of the demonstratives across the sentences in the experiment.
4.4.6 The Distribution of the Nonce Nouns Across the Contexts
The determiners are randomly linked to the nonce nouns in the experiment. A schematic
overview of the distribution of the nonce nouns across the contexts is given in Table 12. A numerical
overview of the distribution of the nonce nouns across the contexts is given in Table 13 below.
Table 12 Schematic distribution of the nonce nouns across the contexts
Adverb
-x
Nonce noun De
Voc
iens
Het
ties
Dat
ijn
Deze
ocht
Die
ief
Dit
ilg
K
koem
P
T
kijn
kecht
pir
tieg
tiemp
pirk
toft
teuk
perg
tuul
tilp
-k
-m
Voc
irf
ilk
oem
oerk
olk
irk
K
kuft
kurp
P
pelk
puig
polt
T
tilk
tirs
tir
tils
Voc
oup
unk
uuk
upt
oos
kolm
oes
kump
toem
ump
K
kuig
kuun
P
porf
purt
purg
T
turp
tulg
tuup
tuuf
tung
turs
-n
Voc
olp
omp
ulp
org
ulg
uim
K
kuum
P
pijt
T
tolg
koft
kolg
puuk
pung
tolm
tups
tomp
tolp
aag
ak
euk
eep
arf
eft
eps
eus
icht
kacht
kag
pank
tuip
-t
Voc
K
ers
ieg
ift
kilg
keup
kijp
picht
peef
penk
taar
terk
kieg
P
paaf
parp
T
taat
taaf
tauk
tacht
techt
tift
taus
tef
tarp
taam
43
Table 13 Numerical distribution of the nonce nouns across the contexts
Adverb
Nonce noun
De
Het
-x
Voc
2
1
Def.
Det.
3
K
1
1
2
P
T
Total
-k
Die
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
Dit
Demonstr.
Total
1
3
6
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
3
6
3
2
9
18
1
1
3
7
1
2
3
1
3
1
4
5
9
2
2
2
4
1
K
1
1
1
P
1
1
2
T
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
5
5
4
9
2
2
2
3
9
18
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
6
1
1
1
1
2
3
Voc
K
1
1
3
1
1
3
6
2
1
9
18
1
3
6
1
3
2
3
3
6
P
1
1
2
1
T
1
2
3
1
4
5
9
4
2
Voc
1
2
3
1
1
K
1
1
2
P
1
T
2
1
3
1
1
1
Total
-n
Deze
Voc
Total
-m
Dat
Total
1
1
1
1
5
4
9
2
3
2
2
9
18
Voc
3
3
6
1
2
1
2
6
12
K
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
6
P
1
2
3
1
1
1
3
6
T
3
3
6
2
1
2
1
6
12
Total
9
9
18
5
5
4
4
18
36
TOTAL
27
27
54
15
14
13
12
54
108
-t
As Table 13 shows, each context is used equally frequently for de and het: 27 nonce nouns
are linked to de and 27 to het. The distribution of the nonce nouns across the demonstratives dat,
deze, die and dit is 15, 14, 13 and 12 respectively.
Initially, the distribution was planned as 14 nonce nouns with dat, 14 with deze, 13 with die
and 13 with dit. However, a typing error while programming the experiment in PRAAT ensued in one
extra nonce noun with dat and one nonce noun fewer with dit.
44
4.5 Procedure: Method
The experiment was run in PRAAT (Boersma & Weenink, 2007). Two screenshots of the
experiment are provided below.
Screenshot 1
Screenshot 2
45
First the test sentences were recorded with a native speaker of Dutch. The speaker was Dr.
Hugo Quené, linguist and phonetician at Utrecht University. He was chosen as the speaker because of
his voice (easy to listen to), his speech (clear, standard Dutch) and his experience as a speaker for
similar linguistic experiments. Dr. Quené was informed beforehand about the way in which the
sentences and the determiners in the sentences should be pronounced, i.e. naturally and not formally.
Dr. Quené was not informed of the goal of the experiment. After the recording, our research team
double checked the sentences on completeness, correctness and pronunciation. Subsequently, they
were linked to PRAAT and the experiment was constructed.
The experiment was run on a laptop (hp pavilion ze4500) and all subjects received written
instructions from the experimenter immediately before they started the experiment.10 This instruction
sheet is provided in Appendix 4. The experiment took place in a quiet (where possible soundproof)
room and the participants wore headphones.11
Trial order was randomised in the experiment, i.e. every subject heard the sentences in a
different order. This was done to prevent order effects. Per trial, subjects saw a nonce noun appear at
the top of the screen (e.g. taaf, koem), which occurred in the test sentence they simultaneously heard
through their headphones. The subjects then had to indicate whether they had heard de taaf or het
taaf, deze koem or dat koem, etc. In the case of de/het taaf they could indicate their choice by clicking
on a yellow bar featuring de or a yellow bar featuring het. This is shown in Screenshot 1 above.
Immediately after they had made their choice, their answer became red (instead of yellow). The
subjects then had to indicate how certain they were of their answer. They could indicate this at the
bottom of the screen, where a large yellow bar featured the numbers 1 to 5. Number 1 stood for
uncertain and 5 for certain, which was made explicit on the screen. Numbers 2, 3 and 4 stood for
‘quite uncertain’, ‘not certain, not uncertain’ and ‘quite certain’ respectively. This was assumed to be
clear, especially after the subjects had read the instructions, and was therefore not made explicit on
the screen. The certainty measure is shown in Screenshot 2 above.12
Subjects could click as soon as they heard the noun and its determiner; they did not have to
wait until the sentence was over. They could not leave sentences unanswered, however, because an
answer had to be given (gender choice as well as certainty measure) before the next sentence started.
Two times during the experiment, after trial 36 and 72 of 108, subjects could take a short
break if they wished to. This option was programmed into the experiment and was made explicit on the
screen. Subjects could also choose to proceed if they did not wish a break.
Immediately before the experiment was started, all subjects did a small ‘practice experiment’
consisting of three sentences. This was done to make sure that all subjects knew exactly what to do.
The practice experiment was like the real experiment in every way, but the three test sentences did
10
It is standardised procedure that the voice of an experimenter is not used in a experiment with bilinguals, as
sociolinguistic reasons prevent this.
11 The experiment was largely run in the cabins of the Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS (Utrecht University)
which are specially designed for phonetic experiments. These cabins are soundproof. However, sometimes
testing on location was necessary because subjects could not come to the UiL-OTS. In these cases, a quiet room
in which the subjects were not disturbed was always provided for.
12 Due to a lack of time and means the results of the certainty measure are not analysed and discussed in this
thesis. This thesis would become too long when such an analysis would be included.
46
not occur in the real experiment. The real experiment immediately followed the practice experiment
and took the subjects approximately 15-20 minutes. The time spent depended on individual speed.
4.6 The C-Test
In addition, in order to quickly test the Dutch proficiency of the second language learners, they
are given a language proficiency test called C-test. The C-test is a tool that serves to measure
proficiency in a quick way. It is a short text in which parts of words are deleted. The first sentence is
left intact in order to provide context. Individuals taking the C-test are asked to fill in the gaps. The
subjects’ (in)capability to fill in the gaps gives an insight into their overall proficiency.
The C-test used for this experiment consists of three parts (i.e. three short texts) provided by
Prof. Dr. René Kager of the Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS (Utrecht University). The C-test is
provided in Appendix 5 in the questionnaire under Vul het woorddeel in (Fill in the gap), section E.
Brief written instructions were included immediately before the C-test. The participants were
asked to fill in the gaps by deriving the answers from the contexts of the words.
The participants filled in the C-test at the very end of the testing process, i.e. after they had
filled in the production task. The C-test took the participants approximately 5 minutes. Again, the time
spent depended on individual speed.
4.7 Results
4.7.1 Introduction
The results of the perception experiment were analysed with SPSS, version 14.0. The
significance level α used is the standard significance level of 0.05 (5%). This means that the reliability
of the tests is 95% (100% - 5%).
This section is organised as follows. Section 4.7.2 outlines the various factors that should be
observed with respect to the second language learners' performance on the perception task. Sections
4.7.3 and 4.7.4 discuss the participants' performances on de, het and the demonstratives (fillers) and
investigate the effect of the various factors. Section 4.7.3 discusses and compares the general results
per group and gives a summary of the results. Section 4.7.4 investigates the effect of the various
factors on the group results and gives a summary of the results. Section 4.7.5 investigates the
influence of phonological context on the perception of het. Section 4.7.5.1 discusses the contexts
before het, section 4.7.5.2 discusses the contexts after het, section 4.7.5.3 discusses the het-stop
contexts, section 4.7.5.4 discusses the full contexts of het and section 4.7.5.5 discusses the stop-hetstop contexts. In every section, the factors age of first exposure and proficiency are controlled for.
Every section gives a summary of the results. Section 4.7.6 gives an analysis of the individual results.
Section 4.7.7 gives a general summary of the results for performance on the perception task.
47
4.7.2 Factors to Observe
There are a number of factors which interact with the performance of the second language
learners and which should therefore be controlled for when analysing performance on the perception
task. These factors are length of exposure to Dutch, intensity of exposure to Dutch, age of first
exposure to Dutch and general proficiency in Dutch.
The factors length of exposure and intensity of exposure are mentioned in Chapter 3 and are
observed in the hypotheses and predictions in sections 3.3. and 3.4. The factor age of first exposure
should also be controlled for. As Table 5 in section 4.3 shows, the second language learners do not
form a homogeneous sample in this respect: age of first exposure ranges from 8;10 years to 41;6
years. The factor proficiency should also be controlled for, because it is very unlikely that all second
language learners have the same proficiency level. It is widely known in second language acquisition
research that proficiency is a good predictor of performance. In order to be able to control for these
factors, the second language learners are subdivided into two groups for each factor. The groups are
outlined below.
Length of Exposure
The 34 second language learners are subdivided into two groups for length of exposure to
Dutch. As the cut-off point 12;0 years of exposure has been chosen. This is based on Unsworth (in
press), who suggests that second language learners of Dutch need to have had at least 12 years of
exposure in order to acquire a targetlike grammatical gender system. It should be noted that Unsworth
states that 12 years of intensive exposure may be needed. Nevertheless, the cut-off point of 12 years
is used here to subdivide the second language learners into groups. Group LE1 has had less than 12
years of exposure (medium exposure), whereas group LE2 has had more than 12 years of exposure
(lengthy exposure). The groups are represented in Table 14.
Table 14 Subdivision into groups for length of exposure (in years and months)
Group
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
LE1
15
3;6
10;5
6;2
2;2
LE2
19
12;0
30;6
21;6
6;6
Because group LE2 has had more exposure to Dutch than group LE1, group LE2 is expected to
perform better on the test than group LE1.
48
Intensity of Exposure
The 34 second language learners are subdivided into two groups for intensity of exposure.
This was done in the following way. In section C of the questionnaire the participants were asked
about their daily language use (Dutch, English) in various situations (at home, at school, at work, etc.).
For all of these situations, the participants could choose from the options Always English (0% Dutch),
Mostly English/Sometimes Dutch (25% Dutch), English and Dutch (50% Dutch), Mostly
Dutch/Sometimes English (75% Dutch) and Always Dutch (100% Dutch). This information has been
used to determine the second language learners' intensity of exposure to Dutch. Table 15 below
shows the various situations in which the second language learners use Dutch and the degree to
which this happens.
Table 15 Use of Dutch in various situations: intensity of exposure (Mean in percentages)
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Reading books
Various Situations
34
0
75
29.4
21.9
At home
33
0
100
38.6
34.3
Watching TV
32
0
75
39.1
21.0
At work
33
0
100
56.1
35.4
With friends
33
0
100
62.1
23.5
Listening to the radio
30
0
100
74.2
31.8
Reading newspapers
34
25
100
75.7
25.7
First encounter
34
0
100
82.4
25.8
At school
10
50
100
82.5
20.6
In a shop
34
75
100
97.8
7.2
Total
34
33
86
62.3
13.0
Table 15 shows that the second language learners especially use Dutch in a shop, at school,
when meeting someone for the first time, when reading newspapers and when listening to the radio.
They predominantly use English in more personal situations, i.e. when reading books, when at home,
when watching TV, when at work and when meeting with friends.
Two groups are created on the basis of the total mean use of Dutch (62.3 %), which serves as
the cut-off point. Group IE1 is the group which has had average exposure to Dutch and group IE2 is
the group which has had more than average or intensive exposure to Dutch. The groups are
represented in Table 16.
Table 16 Subdivision into groups for intensity of exposure (use of Dutch in percentages)
Group
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
IE1
IE2
18
16
33
64
60
86
52.1
73.7
6.9
7.5
Because group IE2 has had more than average or intensive exposure, while group IE1 has had
average exposure, group IE2 is expected to perform better on the test than group IE1.
49
Age of First Exposure
The 34 second language learners are subdivided into two groups for age of first exposure to
Dutch. The cut-off point has been set at 18;0 years. The reason for this, is that an age of 18;0 years
marks the onset of adulthood. Thus, the second language learners are subdivided into a group for
whom age of first exposure lies before adulthood (puberty learners), and a group for whom age of first
exposure lies in adulthood (adult learners). This is done because of the claims of various researchers,
who state that the end of the purported critical period for language acquisition can be extended to the
onset of adulthood, i.e. to the end of puberty (see Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003 for a recent
discussion). Group AE1 are the puberty learners and group AE2 are the adult learners. The groups
are represented in Table 17.
Table 17 Subdivision into groups for age of first exposure (in years and months)
Group
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
AE1
7
8;10
17;11
12;4
3;10
AE2
27
18;0
41;6
27;3
7;2
Following those who claim that the critical period does not end until puberty has ended, i.e. until the
onset of adulthood, group AE1 should perform better on the test than group AE2 because they have
not reached adulthood yet.
Proficiency
The second language learners are subdivided into two groups for their general Dutch
proficiency level. This was done on the basis of their scores on the C-test. Table 18 shows the second
language learners' mean scores for performance on the three separate parts of the test as well as the
mean score for performance on the test as a whole.
Table 18 The second language learners' scores on the C-test (Mean in percentages correct)
C-Test
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Part 1
34
30
100
84.9
16.6
Part 2
34
0
100
76.6
26.7
Part 3
34
0
100
67.7
29.7
Whole C-Test
34
20
100
76.4
22.0
Two groups are created on the basis of the total mean score on the C-test (76.4% correct), which
serves as the cut-off point. Group P1 is the group with an average proficiency level and group P2 is
the group with a more than average or high proficiency level. The groups are represented in Table 19.
50
Table 19 Subdivision into groups for proficiency (Mean C-test scores in percentages correct)
Group
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
P1
14
P2
20
20
75
55.3
18.9
82
100
91.3
5.7
Because group P2 has a higher proficiency level than group P1, group P2 is expected to perform
better on the test than group P1.
4.7.3 Group Results
4.7.3.1 General Results
Tables 20, 21 and 22 show the performance of the Dutch control group and the second
language learner group on the perception task.
Table 20 Perception results per group (Mean in percentages correct)
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Second language learners
(N = 34)
De
99.5 (SD = 1.4)
97.4 (SD = 6.5)
Het
94.6 (SD = 5.3)
83.7 (SD = 16.9)
All Determiners (de, het )
96.9 (SD = 2.8)
90.5 (SD = 10.5)
Non-neuter demonstratives (deze, die)
99.8 (SD = 0.9)
98.3 (SD = 9.4)
Neuter demonstratives (dit, dat)
99.7 (SD = 1.0)
96.4 (SD = 8.8)
All Demonstratives (deze, die, dit, dat)
99.7 (SD = 0.7)
97.3 (SD = 8.7)
Whole Test (all test items)
98.4 (SD = 1.5)
93.9 (SD = 9.1)
Table 21 Range of performance (Mean in percentages correct) of the Dutch control group (N = 15)
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
De
96
Het
85
100
4
100
100
15
96
All Determiners (de and het)
Non-neuter demonstratives
93
100
7
98
97
100
4
100
Neuter demonstratives
96
100
4
100
All Demonstratives
98
100
4
100
Whole Test (all test items)
95
100
5
98.3
Table 22 Range of performance (Mean in percentages correct) of the second language learners (N = 34)
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
De
63
100
37
100
Het
26
100
74
89
All Determiners (de and het )
54
100
46
93.5
Non-neuter demonstratives
45
100
55
100
Neuter demonstratives
55
100
46
100
All Demonstratives
50
100
50
100
Whole Test (all test items)
52
100
48
96.8
51
In order to determine whether there are significant differences in performance within and
between the two groups, (performance within) the groups can be compared statistically. Before this
can be done, however, it should be determined whether test performance shows an even or uneven
distribution.
It was found that the second language learner group shows an uneven distribution for
performance on the separate test categories and performance on the test as a whole (KolmogorovSmirnov and Shapiro-Wilk: p < 0.05). The Dutch control group shows an even distribution for
performance on the test as a whole (Kolmogorov-Smirnov: p > 0.05, Shapiro-Wilk: p < 0.05), but
uneven distributions for performance on the separate test categories (Kolmogorov-Smirnov and
Shapiro-Wilk: p < 0.05).
Because the two groups show uneven distributions for performance and the number of Dutch
control subjects is < 30, non-parametric tests are used to compare (performance within) the groups.
The Wilcoxon signed-ranks test is used for comparisons within groups and the Mann-Whitney test is
used for comparisons between groups. The Kruskal-Wallis test is used for comparisons between more
than two groups.
4.7.3.2 The Dutch Control Group
Table 23 shows that no significant differences are found within the Dutch control group with
respect to performance on de vs. het, the determiners vs. the demonstratives and the non-neuter
demonstratives vs. the neuter demonstratives.
Table 23 Perception results of the Dutch control group (N = 15)
De vs. Het
Z = -.343; p = .732
Determiners vs. Demonstratives
Z = -.531; p = .596
Non-neuter Demonstratives vs. Neuter Demonstratives
Z = .000; p = 1.000
4.7.3.3 The Second Language Learners
Table 24 shows that no significant differences are found within the group of second language
learners with respect to performance on de vs. het, the determiners vs. the demonstratives and the
non-neuter demonstratives vs. the neuter demonstratives.
Table 24 Perception results of the second language learners (N = 34)
De vs. Het
Z = -.099; p = .922
Determiners vs. Demonstratives
Z = -.196; p = .844
Non-neuter Demonstratives vs. Neuter Demonstratives
Z = -.508; p = .612
52
4.7.3.4 Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of the Dutch control group and the second language
learners. It should be observed that the results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 3) are used for this analysis. In order to obtain a homogeneous sample which can be compared to the
Dutch control group, three outliers are excluded from the group of second language learners.
When exploring the scores on the perception test as a whole for all 34 second language
learner participants, two extremes and one outlier are found. The two extremes have total test scores
of 52% and 74% correct respectively, and the outlier has a total test score of 85% correct. All other
second language learners have a total test score of more than 85% correct.
The extremes and the outlier are represented in Figure 1 below. The extremes (participants 14
and 31) are represented by a star ( * ) and the outlier (participant 34) is represented by a circle ( o ).
Figure 1 Boxplot of the second language learners' total test scores (1.00 = 100% correct)
Two extremes ( * ) and one outlier ( o )
N = 34
1,00
0,90
34
TotalTest
0,80
31
0,70
0,60
14
0,50
English
MotherTongue
In order to determine whether the 3 outliers in Figure 1 are indeed outliers, a statistical test
can be done. For this thesis, use has been made of a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test via a web-interface
(Kirkman, 1996: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). According to this test, the outliers in Figure 1 are indeed
outliers (Kirkman, 1996: outcome Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). This means that the second language
learners who have total test scores of 52%, 74% and 85% correct respectively are outliers.
53
Figure 2 below represents the total test scores of the Dutch native speaker control group.
Figure 2 Boxplot of the Dutch native speaker control group's total test scores (1.00 = 100% correct)
No extremes, no outliers
N = 15
1,00
0,90
TotalTest
0,80
0,70
0,60
0,50
Dutch
MotherTongue
Figure 2 does not show any extremes or outliers. An additional Kolmogorov-Smirnov test via the webinterface (Kirkman, 1996: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) confirms this: no outliers are found. Because the
Dutch native speaker control group does not show any extremes or outliers, the results of all 15 Dutch
native speaker controls are used. All Dutch controls have a total test score of 95% correct or higher.
Table 25 shows the results of the comparison of the groups analysis. The second language
learners (N = 31) are compared to the Dutch control group (N = 15).
In sections 3.3 and 3.4 above it was hypothesised and predicted that the second language
learners will especially have difficulties with het when het occurs in the t-het-t contexts (t-het-tef, t-hettaaf, t-het-techt). In order to check whether the differences in performance between the groups are
significant when the t-het-t contexts are excluded from the analyses, performance on het without the thet-t contexts, the determiners without the t-het-t contexts and the test as a whole without the t-het-t
contexts have also been investigated.
54
Table 25 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. the second language learners
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Mann-Whitney test
Significant differences are shaded
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Second language
learners (N = 31)
Dutch control group vs.
second language learners
De
99.5 (SD = 1.4)
98.7 (SD = 2.3)
Z = -1.214; p = .225
Het
94.6 (SD = 5.3)
87.8 (SD = 10.0)
Z = -2.315; p = .021
Het without t-het-t
98.4 (SD = 2.0)
91.6 (SD = 9.2)
Z = -2.981; p = .003
Determiners (de, het )
96.9 (SD = 2.8)
93.2 (SD = 5.4)
Z = -2.368; p = .018
Determiners without t-het-t
98.9 (SD = 1.3)
95.1 (SD = 5.2)
Z = -2.933; p = .003
Deze
99.5 (SD = 1.8)
100 (SD = 0.0)
Z = -1.438; p = .151
Die
100 (SD = 0.0)
99.7 (SD = 1.4)
Z = -.696; p = .487
Dit
99.5 (SD = 2.1)
99.0 (SD = 2.7)
Z = -.630; p = .529
Dat
100 (SD = 0.0)
98.0 (SD = 3.6)
Z = -2.137; p = .033
Non-neuter demonstratives
99.8 (SD = 0.9)
99.9 (SD = 0.7)
Z = -.497; p = .619
Neuter demonstratives
99.7 (SD = 1.0)
98.5 (SD = 2.4)
Z = -1.835; p = .067
Demonstratives
99.7 (SD = 0.7)
99.1 (SD = 1.5)
Z = -1.435; p = .151
Whole Test (all test items)
98.4 (SD = 1.5)
96.2 (SD = 3.2)
Z = -2.195; p = .028
Whole Test without t-het-t
99.3 (SD = 0.7)
97.1 (SD = 3.1)
Z = -2.878; p = .004
Table 25 shows that the Dutch control group performs better on all test categories except deze and
the non-neuter demonstratives taken together. There are significant differences between the groups
for performance on het (with and without the t-het-t contexts), the determiners (with and without the thet-t contexts), dat and the test as a whole (with and without the t-het-t contexts). In all cases, the
Dutch control group performs significantly better than the second language learner group. The fact that
the differences remain significant when the t-het-t contexts are excluded indicates that there are also
other contexts of het which cause difficulties for the second language learners.
4.7.3.5 Summary
The results of the comparison of the groups analysis tell us a number of things. According to
the test results, the second language learners have more difficulties than the Dutch control group with
the perception of het, the determiners and the test as a whole. This is also the case when the t-het-t
contexts are excluded from the analysis. The fact that the differences remain significant when the thet-t contexts are excluded from the analysis indicates that there are also other contexts of het which
cause difficulties for the second language learners. Since our focus is on the perception of het, the
second language learners' difficulties with het are very important. The second language learners also
have more difficulties than the Dutch control group with the perception of dat. This is striking, and a
possible explanation for this is discussed in Chapter 7. The second language learners perform at
native level on de, deze, die, dit, the non-neuter demonstratives, the neuter demonstratives and the
demonstratives taken together.
55
No significant differences have been found within the Dutch control group and the second
language learner group with respect to performance on de vs. het, performance on the determiners vs.
the demonstratives and performance on the non-neuter demonstratives vs. the neuter demonstratives.
4.7.4 Group Results per Factor
This section analyses the group results per factor. Again, the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test is
used for comparisons within groups and the Mann Whitney test is used for comparisons between
groups. The Kruskal-Wallis test is used for comparisons between more than two groups.
This section is organised as follows. Section 4.7.4.1 discusses the results for the factor age of
first exposure, section 4.7.4.2 discusses the results for the factor length of exposure, section 4.7.4.3
discusses the results for the factor intensity of exposure and section 4.7.4.4 discusses the results for
the factor proficiency. Section 4.7.4.5 discusses the correlation between the factors and performance,
and section 4.7.4.6 gives a summary of the group results per factor.
4.7.4.1 Age of First Exposure
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners have been subdivided into two groups
for age of first exposure: groups AE1 and AE2. Group AE1 are the early acquirers of Dutch (before 18
years of age; puberty learners) and group AE2 are the later acquirers (after 18 years of age; adult
learners). Table 26 shows the performance of the two groups.
Table 26 Group results for AE1 and AE2 (Mean in percentages correct)
AE1 (N = 7)
AE2 (N = 27)
De
99.4 (SD = 1.5)
96.8 (SD = 7.2)
Het
94.7 (SD = 3.5)
80.8 (SD = 17.9)
All Determiners (de, het )
97.0 (SD = 2.2)
88.8 (SD = 11.2)
Non-neuter demonstratives (deze, die)
100 (SD = 0.0)
97.8 (SD = 10.6)
Neuter demonstratives (dit, dat)
99.5 (SD = 1.3)
95.6 (SD = 9.8)
All Demonstratives (deze, die, dit, dat)
99.7 (SD = 0.8)
96.6 (SD = 9.7)
Whole Test (all test items)
98.4 (SD = 1.2)
92.8 (SD = 9.9)
Group AE1
Table 27 shows no significant differences within group AE1 with respect to performance on the
various test categories.
Table 27 Results of group AE1 (N = 7)
De vs. Het
Z = -1.876; p = .061
Determiners vs. Demonstratives
Z = -1.018; p = .309
Non-neuter Demonstratives vs. Neuter Demonstratives
Z = -1.265; p = .206
56
Group AE2
Table 28 shows no significant differences within group AE2 with respect to performance on the
various test categories.
Table 28 Results of group AE2 (N = 27)
De vs. Het
Z = -.598; p = .550
Determiners vs. Demonstratives
Z = -.830; p = .406
Non-neuter Demonstratives vs. Neuter Demonstratives
Z = -1.028; p = .304
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups AE1, AE2 and the Dutch control group. It
should be observed that the results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are used
for this analysis. The 3 outliers mentioned in section 4.7.3 are excluded from the analysis. They are all
part of group AE2 and, consequently, group AE2 consists of only 24 second language learners (27 3). Again, performance on het without the t-het-t contexts, the determiners without the t-het-t contexts
and the test as a whole without the t-het-t contexts are also looked at.
Table 29 shows the results of the comparison of the groups analysis.
Table 29 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group AE1 vs. group AE2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Significant differences are shaded
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group AE1
(N = 7)
Group AE2
(N = 24)
De
99.5 (SD = 1.4)
99.4 (SD = 1.5)
98.4 (SD = 2.4)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 2.651; p = .266
Het
94.6 (SD = 5.3)
94.7 (SD = 3.5)
85.8 (SD = 10.5)
χ2 = 10.440; p = .005
Het without t-het-t
98.4 (SD = 2.0)
97.1 (SD = 3.0)
90.0 (SD = 9.8)
χ2 = 12.211; p = .002
Determiners (de, het )
96.9 (SD = 2.8)
97.0 (SD = 2.2)
92.1 (SD = 5.6)
χ2 = 11.121; p = .004
Determiners without t-het-t
98.9 (SD = 1.3)
98.3 (SD = 2.1)
94.2 (SD = 5.5)
χ2 = 12.994; p = .002
Deze
99.5 (SD = 1.8)
100 (SD = 0.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
χ2 = 2.067; p = .356
Die
100 (SD = 0.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
99.7 (SD = 1.6)
χ2 = .917; p = .632
Dit
99.5 (SD = 2.1)
100 (SD = 0.0)
98.7 (SD = 3.0)
χ2 = 1.917; p = .383
Dat
100 (SD = 0.0)
99.0 (SD = 2.6)
97.7 (SD = 3.8)
χ2 = 5.424; p = .066
Non-neuter demonstratives
99.8 (SD = 0.9)
100 (SD = 0.0)
99.8 (SD = 0.8)
χ2 = .478; p = .787
Neuter demonstratives
99.7 (SD = 1.0)
99.5 (SD = 1.3)
98.2 (SD = 2.6)
χ2 = 5.212; p = .074
Demonstratives
99.7 (SD = 0.7)
99.7 (SD = 0.8)
98.9 (SD = 1.7)
χ2 = 3.743; p = .154
Whole Test (all test items)
98.4 (SD = 1.5)
98.4 (SD = 1.2)
95.6 (SD = 3.4)
χ2 = 10.054; p = .007
Whole Test without t-het-t
99.3 (SD = 0.7)
99.0 (SD = 1.0)
96.5 (SD = 3.3)
χ2 = 12.179; p = .002
57
Table 29 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on het (with and without
the t-het-t contexts), the determiners (with and without the t-het-t contexts) and the test as a whole
(with and without the t-het-t contexts). This only tells us that there is variation among the groups for
performance on these test categories. Table 30 is more specific by showing the results of the
comparison of the groups in pairs (Mann Whitney test).
The standard significance level α used for the Mann Whitney tests needs to be adjusted here
because of the multiple comparisons made in the Kruskal-Wallis test. When adjusting the standard
significance level by means of a Bonferroni adjustment, the new significance level becomes 0.0167
(0.05 : 3). When the Bonferroni adjustment is taken into account, the shaded differences in Table 30
are significant.
Table 30 Comparison of the groups (Dutch control group, group AE1 and group AE2) in pairs
Significant differences are shaded (Bonferroni adjustment)
AE1 vs. AE2
AE1 vs. Dutch control
group
AE2 vs. Dutch control
group
Het
Z = -2.345; p = .019
Z = -.109; p = .913
Z = -2.805; p = .005
Het without t-het-t
Z = -1.891; p = .059
Z = -.964; p = .335
Z = -3.292; p = .001
Determiners (de, het )
Z = -2.438; p = .015
Z = -.072; p = .942
Z = -2.886; p = .004
Determiners without t-het-t
Z = -2.091; p = .037
Z = -.588; p = .556
Z = -3.371; p = .001
Whole Test (all test items)
Z = -2.351; p = .019
Z = -.036; p = .971
Z = -2.719; p = .007
Whole Test without t-het-t
Z = -2.038; p = .042
Z = -.731; p = .465
Z = -3.247; p = .001
Table 30 shows that there is a significant difference between groups AE1 and AE2 for performance on
the determiners as a whole. Group AE1 perceives the determiners significantly better than group AE2.
The difference in performance on the determiners without the t-het-t contexts is not significant,
however. For this reason, the significant difference in performance on the determiners appears to be
solely due to the inclusion of the t-het-t contexts. There are no significant differences in performance
between group AE1 and the Dutch control group. This means that group AE1 performs at native level,
perceiving the test categories equally well as the native speakers. There are significant differences
between group AE2 and the Dutch control group for performance on het (with and without the t-het-t
contexts), the determiners (with and without the t-het-t contexts) and the test as a whole (with and
without the t-het-t contexts). In all cases, the Dutch control group performs significantly better than
group AE2. The fact that the differences remain significant when the t-het-t contexts are excluded
indicates that there are also other contexts of het which cause difficulties for group AE2.
When observing the difference in performance between groups AE1 and AE2 when they are
compared to the Dutch control group, it can be concluded that age of first exposure appears to have
an effect on performance on het, the determiners and the test as a whole (all with and without the thet-t contexts). The puberty learners (group AE1) perform better on these categories than the adult
learners (group AE2), because they perform at native level and the adult learners do not. Thus, earlier
acquisition seems to lead to a better perception of het, the determiners and the test as a whole (all
with and without the t-het-t contexts). This is also suggested by the fact that group AE1 perceives the
58
determiners significantly better than group AE2. The difference between groups AE1 and AE2 could
also be an effect of length of exposure, however. This factor is discussed in the next section.
4.7.4.2 Length of Exposure
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners have been subdivided into two groups
for length of exposure: groups LE1 and LE2. Group LE1 are the learners who have had exposure to
Dutch for less than 12 years (medium exposure) and group LE2 are the learners who have had
exposure to Dutch for 12 years or more (lengthy exposure). Table 31 shows the performance of the
two groups.
Table 31 Group results for LE1 and LE2 (Mean in percentages correct)
LE1 (N = 15)
LE2 (N = 19)
De
98.2 (SD = 2.4)
96.7 (SD = 8.5)
Het
83.5 (SD = 18.5)
83.8 (SD = 16.1)
All Determiners (de, het )
90.8 (SD = 9.6)
90.2 (SD = 11.5)
Non-neuter demonstratives (deze, die)
99.7 (SD = 1.0)
97.1 (SD = 12.6)
Neuter demonstratives (dit, dat)
96.6 (SD = 6.7)
96.3 (SD = 10.4)
All Demonstratives (deze, die, dit, dat)
98.1 (SD = 3.5)
96.6 (SD = 11.4)
Whole Test (all test items)
94.5 (SD = 6.4)
93.5 (SD = 10.9)
Group LE1
Table 32 shows no significant differences within group LE1 with respect to performance on the
various test categories.
Table 32 Results of group LE1 (N = 15)
De vs. Het
Z = -.227; p = .820
Determiners vs. Demonstratives
Z = -.245; p = .807
Non-neuter Demonstratives vs. Neuter Demonstratives
Z = -.870; p = .384
Group LE2
Table 33 shows no significant differences within group LE2 with respect to performance on the
various test categories.
Table 33 Results of group LE2 (N = 19)
De vs. Het
Z = -.110; p = .913
Determiners vs. Demonstratives
Z = -.592; p = .554
Non-neuter Demonstratives vs. Neuter Demonstratives
Z = -.251; p = .802
59
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups LE1, LE2 and the Dutch control group. The
results of only 31 second language learners (34 - 3) are used for this analysis, as the 3 outliers are
excluded. One of the outliers is part of group LE1 and two are part of group LE2. Consequently, group
LE1 consists of only 14 second language learners (15 - 1) and group LE2 of only 17 second language
learners (19 - 2). Again, performance on het without the t-het-t contexts, the determiners without the thet-t contexts and the test as a whole without the t-het-t contexts are also looked at.
Table 34 shows the results of the comparison of the groups analysis.
Table 34 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group LE1 vs. group LE2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Significant differences are shaded
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group LE1
(N = 14)
Group LE2
(N = 17)
De
99.5 (SD = 1.4)
98.4 (SD = 2.4)
98.9 (SD = 2.2)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 2.057; p = .357
Het
94.6 (SD = 5.3)
87.6 (SD = 9.9)
88.0 (SD = 10.5)
χ2 = 5.456; p = .065
Het without t-het-t
98.4 (SD = 2.0)
92.1 (SD = 8.4)
91.2 (SD = 10.1)
χ2 = 8.914; p = .012
Determiners (de, het )
96.9 (SD = 2.8)
92.9 (SD = 5.1)
93.4 (SD = 5.8)
χ2 = 5.871; p = .053
Determiners without t-het-t
98.9 (SD = 1.3)
95.4 (SD = 4.2)
94.8 (SD = 6.1)
χ2 = 8.619; p = .013
Deze
99.5 (SD = 1.8)
100 (SD = 0.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
χ2 = 2.067; p = .356
Die
100 (SD = 0.0)
99.4 (SD = 2.1)
100 (SD = 0.0)
χ2 = 2.286; p = .319
Dit
99.5 (SD = 2.1)
99.4 (SD = 2.1)
98.6 (SD = 3.1)
χ2 = 1.252; p = .535
Dat
100 (SD = 0.0)
97.0 (SD = 3.6)
98.8 (SD = 3.5)
χ2 = 9.064; p = .011
Non-neuter demonstratives
99.8 (SD = 0.9)
99.7 (SD = 1.1)
100 (SD = 0.0)
χ2 = 1.209; p = .546
Neuter demonstratives
99.7 (SD = 1.0)
98.2 (SD = 2.4)
98.7 (SD = 2.5)
χ2 = 4.118; p = .128
Demonstratives
99.7 (SD = 0.7)
98.9 (SD = 1.7)
99.1 (SD = 1.4)
χ2 = 3.222; p = .200
Whole Test (all test items)
98.4 (SD = 1.5)
96.0 (SD = 3.1)
96.4 (SD = 3.4)
χ2 = 5.434; p = .066
Whole Test without t-het-t
99.3 (SD = 0.7)
97.1 (SD = 2.6)
97.1 (SD = 3.6)
χ2 = 8.494; p = .014
Table 34 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on het without the t-het-t
contexts, the determiners without the t-het-t contexts, dat and the test as a whole without the t-het-t
contexts. Table 35 is more specific by showing the results of the comparison of the groups in pairs
(Mann Whitney test).
Table 35 Comparison of the groups (Dutch control group, group LE1 and group LE2) in pairs
Significant differences are shaded (Bonferroni adjustment)
LE1 vs. LE2
LE1 vs. Dutch control
group
LE2 vs. Dutch control
group
Het without t-het-t
Z = -.163; p = .871
Z = -2.645; p = .008
Z = -2.618; p = .009
Determiners without t-het-t
Z = -.162; p = .872
Z = -2.536; p = .011
Z = -2.619; p = .009
Dat
Z = -1.771; p = .077
Z = -2.798; p = .005
Z = -1.350; p = .177
Whole Test without t-het-t
Z = -.443; p = .658
Z = -2.686; p = .007
Z = -2.370; p = .018
60
Table 35 shows no significant differences between groups LE1 and LE2 for performance on the
separate test categories and the test as a whole. There are significant differences between group LE1
and the Dutch control group for performance on all of the test categories. On all of the test categories,
the Dutch control group performs significantly better than group LE1. There are also significant
differences between group LE2 and the Dutch control group for performance on het without t-het-t and
the determiners without t-het-t. On both categories, the Dutch control group performs significantly
better than group LE2.
When observing the performance of groups LE1 and LE2 as compared to the Dutch control
group, it can be concluded that length of exposure only appears to have an effect on the perception of
dat and the test as a whole without the t-het-t contexts. Table 35 shows that group LE2 (the second
language learners who have had lengthy exposure) performs better on these categories than group
LE1 (the second language learners who have had average exposure), because they perform at native
level and group LE1 does not.
Tables 34 and 35 show significant differences between group LE1, LE2 and the Dutch control
group for performance on het without the t-het-t contexts, the determiners without the t-het-t contexts
and the test as a whole without the t-het-t contexts, but there are no significant differences between
the groups for performance on het, the determiners and the test as a whole (with the t-het-t contexts).
Thus, it appears that the significant differences between the groups for these contexts are solely due
to the exclusion of the t-het-t contexts. This indicates that it is not the t-het-t contexts which cause the
significant differences in performance, but other contexts of het.
4.7.4.3 Intensity of Exposure
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners have been subdivided into two groups
for intensity of exposure: groups IE1 and IE2. Group IE1 are the learners who have had average
exposure to Dutch and group IE2 are the learners who have had more than average or intensive
exposure to Dutch. Table 36 shows the performance of the two groups.
Table 36 Group results for IE1 and IE2 (Mean in percentages correct)
IE1 (N = 18)
IE2 (N = 16)
De
95.8 (SD = 8.6)
99.1 (SD = 2.1)
Het
80.2 (SD = 20.3)
87.5 (SD = 11.5)
All Determiners (de, het )
88.1 (SD = 13.0)
93.4 (SD = 6.2)
Non-neuter demonstratives (deze, die)
96.9 (SD = 13.0)
99.8 (SD = 1.0)
Neuter demonstratives (dit, dat)
94.8 (SD = 11.7)
98.2 (SD = 2.9)
All Demonstratives (deze, die, dit, dat)
95.8 (SD = 11.8)
98.9 (SD = 1.9)
Whole Test (all test items)
92.0 (SD = 11.8)
96.1 (SD = 3.8)
61
Group IE1
Table 37 shows no significant differences within group IE1 with respect to performance on the
various test categories.
Table 37 Results of group IE1 (N = 18)
De vs. Het
Z = -.569; p = .569
Determiners vs. Demonstratives
Z = -.740; p = .459
Non-neuter Demonstratives vs. Neuter Demonstratives
Z = -1.044; p = .297
Group IE2
Table 38 shows no significant differences within group IE2 with respect to performance on the
various test categories.
Table 38 Results of group IE2 (N = 16)
De vs. Het
Z = -.415; p = .678
Determiners vs. Demonstratives
Z = -.311; p = .756
Non-neuter Demonstratives vs. Neuter Demonstratives
Z = -.537; p = .591
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups IE1, IE2 and the Dutch control group. The
results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are used for this analysis, as the 3
outliers are excluded. The outliers are all part of group IE1. Consequently, group IE1 consists of only
15 second language learners (18 - 3). Again, performance on het without the t-het-t contexts, the
determiners without the t-het-t contexts and the test as a whole without the t-het-t contexts are also
looked at.
Table 39 shows the results of the comparison of the groups analysis.
62
Table 39 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group IE1 vs. group IE2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Significant differences are shaded
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group IE1
(N = 15)
Group IE2
(N = 16)
De
99.5 (SD = 1.4)
98.2 (SD = 2.4)
99.1 (SD = 2.1)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 3.191; p = .203
Het
94.6 (SD = 5.3)
88.1 (SD = 8.6)
87.5 (SD = 11.5)
χ2 = 5.430; p = .066
Het without t-het-t
98.4 (SD = 2.0)
92.9 (SD = 8.4)
90.4 (SD = 10.0)
χ2 = 9.292; p = .010
Determiners (de, het )
96.9 (SD = 2.8)
93.2 (SD = 4.7)
93.2 (SD = 5.4)
χ2 = 5.799; p = .055
Determiners without t-het-t
98.9 (SD = 1.3)
95.3 (SD = 5.3)
94.9 (SD = 5.4)
χ2 = 8.703; p = .013
Deze
99.5 (SD = 1.8)
100 (SD = 0.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
χ2 = 2.067; p = .356
Die
100 (SD = 0.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
99.5 (SD = 2.0)
χ2 = 1.875; p = .392
Dit
99.5 (SD = 2.1)
98.9 (SD = 2.8)
99.0 (SD = 2.7)
χ2 = .402; p = .818
Dat
100 (SD = 0.0)
98.6 (SD = 2.9)
97.4 (SD = 4.2)
χ2 = 5.334; p = .069
Non-neuter demonstratives
99.8 (SD = 0.9)
100 (SD = 0.0)
99.8 (SD = 1.0)
χ2 = .990; p = .610
Neuter demonstratives
99.7 (SD = 1.0)
98.8 (SD = 1.8)
98.2 (SD = 2.9)
χ2 = 3.377; p = .185
Demonstratives
99.7 (SD = 0.7)
99.3 (SD = 1.0)
98.9 (SD = 1.9)
χ2 = 2.093; p = .351
Whole Test (all test items)
98.4 (SD = 1.5)
96.3 (SD = 2.7)
96.1 (SD = 3.8)
χ2 = 4.890; p = .087
Whole Test without t-het-t
99.3 (SD = 0.7)
97.3 (SD = 2.9)
96.9 (SD = 3.4)
χ2 = 8.400; p = .015
Table 39 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on het without the t-het-t
contexts, the determiners without the t-het-t contexts and the test as a whole without the t-het-t
contexts. Table 40 is more specific by showing the results of the comparison of the groups in pairs
(Mann Whitney test).
Table 40 Comparison of the groups (Dutch control group, group IE1 and group IE2) in pairs
Significant differences are shaded (Bonferroni adjustment)
IE1 vs. IE2
IE1 vs. Dutch control
group
IE2 vs. Dutch control
group
Het without t-het-t
Z = -.608; p = .543
Z = -2.268; p = .023
Z = -2.965; p = .003
Determiners without t-het-t
Z = -.322; p = .748
Z = -2.395; p = .017
Z = -2.735; p = .006
Whole Test without t-het-t
Z = -.321; p = .748
Z = -2.304; p = .021
Z = -2.724; p = .006
Table 40 shows no significant differences between groups IE1 and IE2 for performance on the test
categories and the test as a whole. There are also no significant differences in performance between
group IE1 and the Dutch control group. This means that there are no significant differences in
perception between the two groups and that group IE1 performs at native level. There are significant
differences between group IE2 and the Dutch control group for performance on all of the test
categories. In all cases, the Dutch control group performs significantly better than group IE2.
When observing the performance of groups IE1 and IE2 as compared to the Dutch control
group, it can be concluded that, for the test categories het without the t-het-t contexts, the determiners
without the t-het-t contexts and the test as a whole without the t-het-t context, intensity of exposure
does not appear to have an effect on performance. Table 40 shows that group IE1 (the group which
63
has had average exposure) performs better on these categories than group IE2 (the group which has
had intensive exposure), because they perform at native level and group IE2 does not. This is striking,
because rather than group IE1, group IE2 is expected to perform at (near-)native level.
Tables 39 and 40 show significant differences between group IE2 and the Dutch control group
for performance on het without the t-het-t contexts, the determiners without the t-het-t contexts and the
test as a whole without the t-het-t contexts, but there are no significant differences between the groups
for performance on het, the determiners and the test as a whole (with the t-het-t contexts). Thus, it
appears that the significant differences between the groups for these contexts are solely due to the
exclusion of the t-het-t contexts. This indicates that it is not the t-het-t contexts which cause the
significant differences in performance, but rather other contexts of het.
4.7.4.4 Proficiency
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners have been subdivided into two groups
for intensity of exposure: groups P1 and P2. Group P1 are the learners who have an average level of
proficiency and group P2 are the learners who have a more than average or high level of proficiency.
Table 41 shows the performance of the two groups.
Table 41 Group results for P1 and P2 (Mean in percentages correct)
P1 (N = 14)
P2 (N = 20)
De
96.8 (SD = 2.8)
97.8 (SD = 8.3)
Het
75.3 (SD = 19.0)
89.5 (SD = 12.8)
All Determiners (de, het )
86.1 (SD = 10.0)
93.5 (SD = 10.0)
Non-neuter demonstratives (deze, die)
99.7 (SD = 1.1)
97.3 (SD = 12.3)
Neuter demonstratives (dit, dat)
95.3 (SD = 6.7)
97.2 (SD = 10.1)
All Demonstratives (deze, die, dit, dat)
97.4 (SD = 3.5)
97.2 (SD = 11.1)
Whole Test (all test items)
91.8 (SD = 6.4)
95.4 (SD = 10.5)
Group P1
Table 42 shows that Group P1 perceives the non-neuter demonstratives significantly better
than the neuter demonstratives.
Table 42 Results of group P1 (N = 14)
Significant differences are shaded
De vs. Het
Z = -.245; p = .807
Determiners vs. Demonstratives
Z = -1.099; p = .272
Non-neuter Demonstratives vs. Neuter Demonstratives
Z = -1.992; p = .046
64
Group P2
Table 43 shows no significant differences within group P2 with respect to performance on the
various test categories.
Table 43 Results of group P2 (N = 20)
De vs. Het
Z =-.471; p = .638
Determiners vs. Demonstratives
Z = -.465; p = .642
Non-neuter Demonstratives vs. Neuter Demonstratives
Z = -1.777; p = .076
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups P1, P2 and the Dutch control group. The
results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are used for this analysis, as the 3
outliers are excluded. Two of the outliers are part of group P1 and one is part of group P2.
Consequently, group P1 consists of only 12 second language learners (14 - 2) and group P2 of only
19 second language learners (20 - 1). Again, performance on het without the t-het-t contexts, the
determiners without the t-het-t contexts and the test as a whole without the t-het-t contexts are also
looked at.
Table 44 shows the results of the comparison of the groups analysis.
Table 44 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group P1 vs. group P2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Significant differences are shaded
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group P1
(N = 12)
Group P2
(N = 19)
De
99.5 (SD = 1.4)
97.2 (SD = 2.3)
99.6 (SD = 1.3)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 11.139; p = .004
Het
94.6 (SD = 5.3)
81.3 (SD = 10.9)
91.9 (SD = 7.2)
χ2 = 13.700; p = .001
Het without t-het-t
98.4 (SD = 2.0)
86.9 (SD = 10.7)
94.6 (SD = 6.9)
χ2 = 15.140; p = .001
Determiners (de, het )
96.9 (SD = 2.8)
89.4 (SD = 5.6)
95.6 (SD = 3.8)
χ2 = 16.950; p = .000
Determiners without t-het-t
98.9 (SD = 1.3)
92.3 (SD = 5.2)
96.8 (SD = 4.6)
χ2 = 18.578; p = .000
Deze
99.5 (SD = 1.8)
100 (SD = 0.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
χ2 = 2.067; p = .356
Die
100 (SD = 0.0)
99.3 (SD = 2.3)
100 (SD = 0.0)
χ2 = 2.833; p = .243
Dit
99.5 (SD = 2.1)
98.0 (SD = 3.6)
99.6 (SD = 1.8)
χ2 = 3.290; p = .193
Dat
100 (SD = 0.0)
96.0 (SD = 4.5)
99.3 (SD = 2.2)
χ2 = 12.573; p = .002
Non-neuter demonstratives
99.8 (SD = 0.9)
99.7 (SD = 1.2)
100 (SD = 0.0)
χ2 = 1.501; p = .472
Neuter demonstratives
99.7 (SD = 1.0)
97.0 (SD = 3.0)
99.4 (SD = 1.4)
χ2 = 11.250 ; p = .004
Demonstratives
99.7 (SD = 0.7)
98.2 (SD = 2.)
99.7 (SD = 0.7)
χ2 = 9.918; p = .007
Whole Test (all test items)
98.4 (SD = 1.5)
93.8 (SD = 3.4)
97.7 (SD = 2.1)
χ2 = 17.654; p = .000
Whole Test without t-het-t
99.3 (SD = 0.7)
95.3 (SD = 3.3)
98.3 (SD = 2.5)
χ2 = 19.339 ; p = .000
65
Table 44 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on all test categories (with
and without the t-het-t contexts) except deze, die, dit and the non-neuter demonstratives. Table 45 is
more specific by showing the results of the comparison of the groups in pairs (Mann Whitney test).
Table 45 Comparison of the groups (Dutch control group, group P1 and group P2) in pairs
Significant differences are shaded (Bonferroni adjustment)
P1 vs. P2
P1 vs. Dutch control
group
P2 vs. Dutch control
group
De
Z = -2.884; p = .004
Z = -2.502; p = .012
Z = -.249; p = .804
Het
Z = -2.896; p = .004
Z = -3.510; p = .000
Z = -.942; p = .346
Het without t-het-t
Z = -2.518; p = .012
Z = -3.738; p = .000
Z = -1.816; p = .069
Determiners (de, het )
Z = -3.344; p = .001
Z = -3.873; p = .000
Z = -.761; p = .447
Determiners without t-het-t
Z = -3.054; p = .002
Z = -4.204; p = .000
Z = -1.385; p = .166
Dat
Z = -2.448; p = .014
Z = -3.034; p = .002
Z = -1.276; p = .202
Neuter demonstratives
Z = -2.572; p = .010
Z = -2.814; p = .005
Z = -.744; p = .457
Demonstratives
Z = -2.610; p = .009
Z = -2.549; p = .011
Z = -.198; p = .843
Whole Test (all test items)
Z = -3.587; p = .000
Z = -3.817; p = .000
Z = -.546; p = .585
Whole Test without t-het-t
Z = -3.210; p = .001
Z = -4.282; p = .000
Z = -1.242; p = .214
Table 45 shows significant differences between groups P1 and P2 for performance on all of the test
categories. In all cases, group P2 performs significantly better than group P1. There are also
significant differences between group P1 and the Dutch control group for performance on all of the test
categories. In all cases, the Dutch control group performs significantly better than group P1. There are
no significant differences in performance between group P2 and the Dutch control group.
When observing the differences in performance between group P1 and P2, as well as the
differences in performance when groups P1 and P2 are compared to the Dutch control group,
proficiency level appears to have an effect on performance on de, het (with and without the t-het-t
contexts), the determiners (with and without the t-het-t contexts), dat, the neuter demonstratives, the
demonstratives as a whole and the test as a whole (with and without the t-het-t contexts). Both group
P2 and the Dutch control group perform better on the test categories than group P1. Moreover, group
P2 performs at native level while group P1 does not. Thus, a higher proficiency level seems to lead to
a better perception of the test categories.
The fact that the differences between the groups remain significant when the t-het-t contexts
are excluded from the analysis indicates that there are also other contexts of het which cause
difficulties for the second language learners.
66
4.7.4.5 Correlation Between the Factors and Performance
Table 46 shows the correlation between the factors and the perception of the test categories.
The total number of second language learners is 34 here.
Table 46 Correlation coëfficients for the factors and the second language learners' performance on
the perception task
Significant correlations are shaded
Length of
Exposure
Intensity of
Exposure
Age of First
Exposure
Proficiency
De
r = -.259; p = .139
r = .161; p = .362
r = -.028; p = .877
r = .009; p = .959
Het
r = -.085; p = .633
r = .207; p = .240
r = -.262; p = .134
r = .375; p = .029
Het without t-het-t
r = -.149; p = .400
r = .194; p = .271
r = -.252; p = .150
r = .309; p = .075
Determiners (de, het )
r = -.149; p = .400
r = .212; p = .228
r = -.215; p = .222
r = .298; p = .087
Determiners without t-het-t
r = -.330; p = .057
r = .186; p = .292
r = -.182; p = .302
r = .201; p = .255
Deze
r = -.302; p = .082
r = .091; p = .607
r = .044; p = .807
r = -.173; p = .327
Die
r = -.262; p = .134
r = .067; p = .708
r = .037; p = .837
r = -.170; p = .337
Dit
r = -.250 ; p = .154
r = .127; p = 472
r = -.073; p = .682
r = -.106; p = .550
Dat
r = -.038; p = .833
r = .142; p = .424
r = -.085; p = .634
r = .167; p = .345
Non-neuter demonstratives
r = -.287; p = .100
r = .081; p = .647
r = .041; p = .819
r = -.173; p = .329
Neuter demonstratives
r = -.169; p = .339
r = .139; p = .434
r = -.081; p = .649
r = .007; p = .970
Demonstratives
r = -.237; p = .177
r = .113; p = .524
r = -.020; p = .911
r = -.082; p = .645
Whole Test (all test items)
r = -.201; p = .254
r = .180; p = .308
r = -.136; p = .443
r = .133; p = .454
Whole Test without t-het-t
r = -.299; p = .086
r = .158; p = .372
r = -.109; p = .539
r = .068; p = .703
Table 46 shows that there is a significant (positive) correlation between the second language learners'
performance on het (with the t-het-t contexts included) and the factor proficiency. Thus, according to
the correlation analysis, of all the factors, only proficiency plays a role and only for performance on
het. When proficiency increases, performance on het improves, i.e. the higher the proficiency level, the
better het is perceived. The correlation is not very strong, however, as only 14.0% of the variance is
explained (r² = .140).
It is not possible to perform a regression analysis in order to see which factor best predicts the
perception of het, de, etc. because the multiple regression models do not show a normal distribution of
standardised residuals. Moreover, in some cases, the variance of the residuals is non-homoscedastic
and the relationship between the predictor and criterion variables is non-linear.
67
4.7.4.6 Summary
In this section various factors which interact with the second language learners' performance
on the perception task have been controlled for. First the factor age of first exposure has been
discussed. The second language learners were subdivided into group AE1 (early acquirers) and group
AE2 (late acquirers). The comparison of the groups analysis shows that age of first exposure appears
to have an effect on performance on the test. There are significant differences between groups AE1
and AE2, and earlier acquisition seems to lead to a better perception of het, the determiners and the
test as a whole. Within groups AE1 and AE2, no significant differences have been found for
performance on the various test categories.
Secondly, the factor length of exposure has been discussed. The second language learners
were subdivided into group LE1 (medium exposure) and group LE2 (lengthy exposure). The
comparison of the groups analysis shows that length of exposure only seems to have an effect on
performance on dat and the test as a whole without the t-het-t contexts. Group LE2 performs at native
level on these test categories while group LE1 does not. Therefore, lengthier exposure seems to lead
to a better perception of these test categories. Within groups LE1 and LE2, no significant differences
have been found for performance on the various test categories.
Thirdly, the factor intensity of exposure has been discussed. The second language learners
were subdivided into group IE1 (average exposure) and group IE2 (intensive exposure). The
comparison of the groups analysis shows that intensity of exposure does not seem to have an effect
on performance on the test. Since group IE1 performs at native level on het without the t-het-t
contexts, the determiners without the t-het-t contexts and the test as a whole without the t-het-t
contexts while group IE2 does not, intensity of exposure does not seem to have an effect on
performance on these test categories. Rather than group IE1, group IE2 is expected to perform at
(near-)native level on these test categories. Within groups IE1 and IE2, no significant differences have
been found for performance on the various test categories.
Fourthly, the factor proficiency has been discussed. The second language learners were
subdivided into group P1 (average proficiency) and group P2 (high proficiency). The comparison of the
groups analysis shows that proficiency appears to have an effect on performance on the test. There
are significant differences between groups P1 and P2 and a higher proficiency level seems to lead to
a better perception of de, het, the determiners, dat, the neuter demonstratives, the demonstratives and
the test as a whole. Group P1 perceives the non-neuter demonstratives significantly better than the
neuter demonstratives. Within group P2, no significant differences have been found for performance
on the various test categories.
The correlation between the factors and performance on the test categories has also been
investigated. A significant positive correlation has been found between the second language learners'
performance on het and proficiency. When proficiency increases, performance on het improves, i.e.
the higher the proficiency level, the better het is perceived. The correlation is not very strong, however,
as only 14.1% of the variance is explained. Thus, according to the correlation analysis, only the factor
proficiency plays a role, and only for performance on het.
68
When the various factors are controlled for it becomes clear that the second language learners
mainly have difficulties with het. It has been found that only groups LE1 and P1 have difficulties with
the perception of dat, whereas most groups have difficulties with het. Therefore, in the next section,
the focus is on the perception of het.
4.7.5 The Influence of Phonological Context
The previous sections show that there are significant differences between the Dutch control
group and the second language learners for performance on the perception task. It has been found
that the second language learners especially have difficulties with the perception of het (with and
without the t-het-t contexts). In this section, the second language learners' misperception of het is
further analysed by investigating the influence of phonological context. As the saliency hypothesis
proposed in this thesis states, the non-saliency of het as induced by its phonological context may be
the cause of the second language learners' difficulties with het, causing het to be misperceived. The
following hierarchy of difficulty was hypothesised: het will be more difficult to perceive when followed
by consonants than when followed by vowels, and more difficult to perceive when followed by /t/ than
when followed by other consonants. It was also hypothesised that both the second language learners
and the Dutch control group will especially have difficulties with the t-het-t contexts. This section
investigates whether there are contexts in which het is more difficult to perceive than in others.
This section is organised as follows. Section 4.7.5.1 discusses the contexts before het and
compares the results per group. Section 4.7.5.2 discusses the contexts after het and compares the
results per group. Section 4.7.5.3 discusses the het-stop contexts and compares the results per group.
Section 4.7.5.4 discusses the full contexts of het and compares the results per group. Section 4.7.5.5
discusses the stop-het-stop contexts and compares the results per group. In every section, two factors
are controlled for, namely age of first exposure and proficiency. The previous section shows that these
two factors have an effect on performance on the test in general and performance on het in particular.
The sections which investigate whether the hypothesised hierarchy of difficulty is borne out in the
results, are especially sections 4.7.5.2, 4.7.5.3 and 4.7.5.5.
As in the previous sections, the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test is used for comparisons within
groups and the Mann-Whitney test is used for comparisons between groups. The Kruskal-Wallis test is
used for comparisons between more than two groups.
69
4.7.5.1 The Contexts Before Het
As pointed out in sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.3, the contexts before het are the final phonemes of
the manner adverbs. As noted in section 4.4.3, five different phonemes are used for the endings of the
manner adverbs, namely /k/, /t/, /m/, /n/ and /x/. These phonemes can be subdivided into three
phonetic categories, namely stops (/k/, /t/), nasals (/m/, /n/) and fricatives (/x/). All of these phonetic
categories occur before het in the experiment.
Table 47 shows the phonetic categories that occur before het.
Table 47 The phonetic categories of the contexts before het
stops
nasals
fricatives
/k/, /t/
/m/, /n/
/x/
4.7.5.1.1 Group Results
General Results
Tables 48, 49 and 50 show the performance of the Dutch control group and the second
language learners on the contexts before het.
Table 48 Group results for performance on the contexts before het (Mean in percentages correct)
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Second language learners
(N = 34)
Stop (/k/, /t/)
92.9 (SD = 7.0)
84.7 (SD = 17.6)
Nasal (/m/, /n/)
98.1 (SD = 5.0)
88.0 (SD = 19.9)
Fricative (/x/)
99.2 (SD = 3.2)
84.2 (SD = 19.8)
Context before het
Table 49 Range of performance on the contexts before het (Mean in percentages correct): the Dutch
control group (N = 15)
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
Stop (/k/, /t/)
81
100
19
95.3
Nasal (/m/, /n/)
86
100
14
100
Fricative (/x/)
88
100
13
100
Context before het
Table 50 Range of performance on the contexts before het (Mean in percentages correct): the second
language learners (N = 34)
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
Stop (/k/, /t/)
29
100
71
90.4
Nasal (/m/, /n/)
7
100
93
100
Fricative (/x/)
13
100
88
87.5
Context before het
70
The Dutch Control Group
Table 51 shows a significant difference within the Dutch control group for performance on
nasal-het vs. the fricative-het contexts. The Dutch control group perceives the fricative-het contexts
significantly better than the nasal-het contexts.
Table 51 Results of the Dutch control group (N = 15) for the contexts before het
Significant differences are shaded
Stop-het vs. Nasal-het
Z = -.029; p = .977
Stop-het vs. Fricative-het
Z = -.381; p = .703
Nasal-het vs. Fricative-het
Z = -1.993; p = .046
The Second Language Learners
Table 52 shows no significant differences within the second language learner group with
respect to performance on the contexts before het.
Table 52 Results of the second language learner group (N = 34) for the contexts before het
Stop-het vs. Nasal-het
Z = -.368; p = .713
Stop-het vs. Fricative-het
Z = -.143; p = .886
Nasal-het vs. Fricative-het
Z = -.086; p = .932
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of the Dutch control group and the second language
learner group on the contexts before het. As in the previous comparison of the groups analyses, the
results of only 31 second language learner participants are used (34 - 3). The 3 outliers are excluded.
Table 53 shows the results of the comparison of the groups analysis. The second language learner
group (N = 31) is compared to the Dutch control group (N = 15). Performance on the stops before het is
given both with and without the t-het-t contexts.
Table 53 Comparison of the groups for performance on the contexts before het
The Dutch control group vs. the second language learners
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Mann Whitney test
Significant differences are shaded
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Second language
learners (N = 31)
Dutch control group vs.
second language learners
Stop (/k/, /t/)
92.9 (SD = 7.0)
88.6 (SD = 11.3)
Z = -1.053; p = .292
Stop (/k/, /t/) without t-het-t
97.2 (SD = 6.0)
93.6 (SD = 10.5)
Z = -1.151; p = .250
Nasal (/m/, /n/)
98.1 (SD = 5.2)
92.9 (SD = 10.3)
Z = -1.820; p = .069
Fricative (/x/)
99.2 (SD = 3.2)
88.7 (SD = 12.6)
Z = -3.261; p = .001
Context before het
71
Table 53 shows that the Dutch control group performs better than the second language learners on all
of the contexts before het. There is a significant difference between the groups for performance on the
fricative-het contexts. The Dutch controls perceive these contexts significantly better than the second
language learners.
4.7.5.1.2 Group Results per Factor: Age of First Exposure
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners are subdivided into two groups for
age of first exposure: groups AE1 and AE2. Group AE1 are the early acquirers of Dutch (before 18
years of age; puberty learners) and group AE2 are the later acquirers (after 18 years of age; adult
learners). Table 54 shows the performance of the two groups on the contexts before het.
Table 54 Group results for performance on the contexts before het: group AE1 and AE2 (Mean in
percentages correct)
AE1 (N = 7)
AE2 (N = 27)
Stop (/k/, /t/)
96.6 (SD = 2.3)
81.7 (SD = 18.5)
Nasal (/m/, /n/)
96.9 (SD = 8.1)
85.7 (SD = 21.4)
Fricative (/x/)
94.6 (SD = 6.7)
81.5 (SD = 21.2)
Context before het
Group AE1
Table 55 shows no significant differences within group AE1 with respect to performance on the
contexts before het.
Table 55 Results of group AE1 (N = 7) for the contexts before het
Stop-het vs. Nasal-het
Z = -.694; p = .488
Stop-het vs. Fricative-het
Z = -.171; p = .864
Nasal-het vs. Fricative-het
Z = -.171; p = .864
Group AE2
Table 56 shows no significant differences within group AE2 with respect to performance on the
contexts before het.
Table 56 Results of group AE2 (N = 27) for the contexts before het
Stop-het vs. Nasal-het
Z = -.374; p = .709
Stop-het vs. Fricative-het
Z = -.067; p = .946
Nasal-het vs. Fricative-het
Z = -.036; p = .971
72
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups AE1, AE2 and the Dutch control group on
the contexts before het. The results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are used
in this analysis, as the 3 outliers are excluded. The outliers are all part of group AE2. Consequently,
group AE2 consists of only 24 second language learners (27 - 3). Table 57 shows the results of the
comparison of the groups analysis. Groups AE1 (N = 7), AE2 (N = 24) and the Dutch control group (N
= 15) are compared. Performance on the stops before het is given both with and without the t-het-t
contexts.
Table 57 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group AE1 vs. group AE2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Significant differences are shaded
Context before het
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group AE1
(N = 7)
Group AE2
(N = 24)
Stop (/k/, /t/)
92.9 (SD = 7.0)
96.6 (SD = 2.3)
86.2 (SD = 11.8)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 6.710; p = .035
Stop (/k/, /t/) without t-het-t
97.2 (SD = 6.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
91.8 (SD = 11.3)
χ2 = 6.529; p = .038
Nasal (/m/, /n/)
98.1 (SD = 5.0)
96.9 (SD = 8.1)
91.7 (SD = 10.7)
χ2 = 5.411; p = .067
Fricative (/x/)
99.2 (SD = 3.2)
94.6 (SD = 6.7)
87.0 (SD = 13.5)
χ2 = 12.176; p = .002
Table 57 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on the stop-het contexts
(with and without t-het-t) and the fricative-het contexts. Table 58 is more specific by showing the
results of the comparison of the groups in pairs (Mann Whitney test).
Table 58 Comparison of the groups (Dutch control group, group AE1 and group AE2) in pairs
Significant differences are shaded (Bonferroni adjustment)
Context before het
AE1 vs. AE2
AE1 vs. Dutch control
group
AE2 vs. Dutch control
group
Stop (/k/, /t/)
Z = -2.474; p = .013
Z = -.847; p = .397
Z = -1.625; p = .104
Stop (/k/, /t/) without t-het-t
Z = -2.128; p = .033
Z = -1.241; p = .215
Z = -1.700; p = .089
Fricative (/x/)
Z = -1.294; p = .196
Z = -2.003; p = .045
Z = -3.389; p = .001
Table 58 shows that there is a significant difference between groups AE1 and AE2 for performance on
the stop-het contexts. Group AE1 perceives these contexts significantly better than group AE2. The
difference in performance on the stop-het contexts without t-het-t, however, is not significant. For this
reason, the significant difference in performance on the stop-het contexts appears to be solely due to
the inclusion of the t-het-t contexts. There are no significant differences in performance between group
AE1 and the Dutch control group. Thus, group AE1 performs at native level. There is a significant
difference between group AE2 and the Dutch control group for performance on the fricative-het
contexts. The Dutch control group perceives these contexts significantly better than group AE2. It
should be observed that the outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test gives a significant difference between
the groups for performance on the stop-het contexts without t-het-t (Table 57). However, there are no
73
significant differences between the groups for these contexts according to the Mann-Whitney test
(Table 58).
4.7.5.1.3 Group Results per Factor: Proficiency
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners are subdivided into two groups for
proficiency: groups P1 and P2. Group P1 are the second language learners with an average
proficiency level and group P2 are the second language learners with a high proficiency level. Table
59 shows the performance of the two groups on the contexts before het.
Table 59 Group results for performance on the contexts before het: group P1 and P2 (Mean in
percentages correct)
P1 (N = 14)
P2 (N = 20)
Stop (/k/, /t/)
77.2 (SD = 16.7)
90.0 (SD = 16.6)
Nasal (/m/, /n/)
79.6 (SD = 26.1)
93.9 (SD = 11.4)
Fricative (/x/)
80.4 (SD = 17.5)
86.9 (SD = 21.3)
Context before het
Group P1
Table 60 shows no significant differences within group P1 with respect to performance on the
contexts before het.
Table 60 Results of group P1 (N = 14) for the contexts before het
Stop-het vs. Nasal-het
Z = -.134; p = .893
Stop-het vs. Fricative-het
Z = -.063; p = .950
Nasal-het vs. Fricative-het
Z = -.252; p = .801
Group P2
Table 61 shows no significant differences within group P2 with respect to performance on the
contexts before het.
Table 61 Results of group P2 (N = 20) for the contexts before het
Stop-het vs. Nasal-het
Z = -.022; p = .982
Stop-het vs. Fricative-het
Z = -.121; p = .904
Nasal-het vs. Fricative-het
Z = -.223; p = .823
74
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups P1, P2 and the Dutch control group on the
contexts before het. The results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are used in
this analysis, as the 3 outliers are excluded. Two of the outliers are part of group P1 and one is part of
group P2. Consequently, group P1 consists of only 12 second language learners (14 - 2), and group
P2 of only 19 second language learners (20 - 1). Table 62 shows the results of the comparison of the
groups analysis. Groups P1 (N = 12), P2 (N = 19) and the Dutch control group (N = 15) are compared.
Performance on the stops before het is given both with and without the t-het-t contexts.
Table 62 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group P1 vs. group P2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Significant differences are shaded
Context before het
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group P1
(N = 12)
Group P2
(N = 19)
Stop (/k/, /t/)
92.9 (SD = 7.0)
81.1 (SD = 11.7)
93.3 (SD = 8.3)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 12.575; p = .002
Stop (/k/, /t/) without t-het-t
97.2 (SD = 6.0)
88.2 (SD = 11.8)
97.1 (SD = 8.1)
χ2 = 10.569; p = .005
Nasal (/m/, /n/)
98.1 (SD = 5.0)
88.7 (SD = 10.8)
95.5 (SD = 9.3)
χ2 = 11.190; p = .004
Fricative (/x/)
99.2 (SD = 3.2)
85.4 (SD = 12.9)
90.8 (SD = 12.4)
χ2 = 14.951; p = .001
Table 62 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on all contexts before het.
Table 63 is more specific by showing the results of the comparison of the groups in pairs (Mann
Whitney test).
Table 63 Comparison of the groups (Dutch control group, group P1 and group P2) in pairs
Significant differences are shaded (Bonferroni adjustment)
P1 vs. P2
P1 vs. Dutch control
group
P2 vs. Dutch control
group
Stop (/k/, /t/)
Z = -3.310; p = .001
Z = -2.628; p = .009
Z = -.324; p = .746
Stop (/k/, /t/) without t-het-t
Z = -2.704; p = .007
Z = -2.443; p = .015
Z = -.235; p = .814
Nasal (/m/, /n/)
Z = -2.067; p = .039
Z = -2.791; p = .005
Z = .-731; p = .465
Fricative (/x/)
Z = -1.372; p = .170
Z = -3.589; p = .000
Z = -2.580; p = .010
Context before het
Table 63 shows that there is a significant difference between groups P1 and P2 for performance on
the stop-het contexts (with and without t-het-t). Group P2 perceives these contexts significantly better
than group P1. The fact that the difference remains significant when the t-het-t contexts are excluded
from the analysis indicates that there are also other stop-het contexts which cause difficulties for group
P1. There are also significant differences between group P1 and the Dutch control group for
performance on all of the contexts before het. In all cases, the Dutch control group perceives the
contexts significantly better than group P1. The fact that the difference remains significant when the thet-t contexts are excluded from the analysis indicates that there are also other stop-het contexts
which cause difficulties for group P1. There is also a significant difference between group P2 and the
75
Dutch control group for performance on the fricative-het contexts. The Dutch control group perceives
these contexts significantly better than group P2.
4.7.5.1.4 Summary
This section has investigated the influence of the contexts before het on the perception of het.
The contexts before het are stops (/k/, /t/), nasals (/m/, /n/) and fricatives (/x/). In addition, two factors
have been controlled for: age of first exposure and proficiency.
The comparison of the groups analysis shows significant differences between the Dutch
control group and the second language learner group for performance on the fricative-het contexts.
The Dutch control group perceives these contexts significantly better than the second language
learners. Within the Dutch control group, the difference between performance on the nasal-het and
fricative-het contexts is significant. The Dutch control group perceives the fricative-het contexts
significantly better than the nasal-het contexts. Within the second language learner group, there are
no significant differences in performance with respect to the contexts before het.
When the factor age of first exposure is controlled for, the comparison of the groups analysis
shows that there is a significant difference between groups AE1 and AE2 for performance on the stophet contexts. Group AE1 perceives these contexts significantly better than group AE2. There is also a
significant difference between the Dutch control group and group AE2 for performance on the fricativehet contexts. The Dutch control group perceives these contexts significantly better than group AE2.
There are no significant differences between group AE1 and the Dutch control group. Thus, group
AE1 performs at native level. Within groups AE1 and AE2, there are no significant differences in
performance with respect to the contexts before het.
When the factor proficiency is controlled for, the comparison of the groups analysis shows that
there are significant differences between groups P1 and P2 for performance on the stop-het contexts
(with and without t-het-t). Group P2 perceives these contexts significantly better than group P1. There
are also significant differences between the Dutch control group and group P1 for performance on all
of the contexts before het (stop-het with and without t-het-t, nasal-het, fricative-het). In all cases, the
Dutch control group perceives the contexts significantly better than group P1. Finally, there is a
significant difference between the Dutch control group and group P2 for performance on the fricativehet contexts. The Dutch control group perceives these contexts significantly better than group P2.
Within groups P1 and P2, there are no significant differences in performance with respect to the
contexts before het.
76
4.7.5.2 The Contexts After Het
As pointed out in sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2, the contexts after het are the initial phonemes of
the nonce nouns. As noted in section 4.4.2, eighteen different phonemes are used for the onsets of
the nonce nouns, namely /p/, /t/, /k/, /a/, /ɑ/, /e/, /ε/, /ø/, /I/, /i/, /εi/, /ɔ/, /u/, /o/, /ɔu/, /œy/, /ʏ/ and /y/.
These phonemes can be subdivided into two phonetic categories, namely stops (/p/, /t/, /k/) and
vowels (/a/, /ɑ/, /e/, /ε/, /ø/, /I/, /i/, /εi/, /ɔ/, /u/, /o/, /ɔu/, /œy/, /ʏ/, /y/). Both of these phonetic categories
occur after het.
Table 64 shows the phonetic categories that occur after het.
Table 64 The phonetic categories of the contexts after het
stops
vowels
/p/, /t/, /k/
/a/, /ɑ/, /e/, /ε/, /ø/, /I/, /i/, /εi/, /ɔ/, /u/, /o/, /ɔu/, /œy/, /ʏ/, /y/
4.7.5.2.1 Group Results
General Results
Tables 65, 66 and 67 show the performance of the Dutch control group and the second language
learners on the contexts after het.
Table 65 Group results for performance on the contexts after het (Mean in percentages correct)
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Second language learners
(N = 34)
Stop
91.9 (SD = 8.1)
80.9 (SD = 18.4)
Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
89.2 (SD = 17.4)
Context after het
Table 66 Range of performance on the contexts after het (Mean in percentages correct): the Dutch
control group (N = 15)
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
Stop
78
100
22
94.4
Vowel
100
100
-
-
Context after het
Table 67 Range of performance on the contexts after het (Mean in percentages correct): the second
language learners (N = 34)
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
Stop
17
100
83
88.9
Vowel
44
100
56
100
Context after het
77
The Dutch Control Group
Table 68 shows no significant difference within the Dutch control group with respect to
performance on the contexts after het.
Table 68 Results of the Dutch control group (N = 15) for the contexts after het
Het-Stop vs. Het-Vowel
Z = .000; p = 1.000
The Second Language Learners
Table 69 shows no significant difference within the second language learner group with
respect to performance on the contexts after het.
Table 69 Results of the second language learner group (N = 34) for the contexts after het
Het-Stop vs. Het-Vowel
Z = -.224; p = .823
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of the Dutch control group and the second language
learner group on the contexts after het. The results of only 31 second language learner participants
are used (34 - 3), as the 3 outliers are excluded from the analysis. Table 70 shows the results of the
comparison of the groups analysis. The second language learner group (N = 31) is compared to the
Dutch control group (N = 15). Performance on the stops after het is given both with and without the t-het-t
contexts.
Table 70 Comparison of the groups for performance on the contexts after het
The Dutch control group vs. the second language learners
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Mann Whitney test
Significant differences are shaded
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Second language
learners (N = 31)
Dutch control group vs.
second language learners
Stop
91.9 (SD = 8.1)
85.5 (SD = 10.5)
Z = -1.932; p = .053
Stop without t-het-t
97.3 (SD = 3.4)
91.0 (SD = 9.2)
Z = -2.427; p = .015
Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
92.5 (SD = 14.2)
Z = -2.438; p = .015
Context after het
Table 70 shows that the Dutch control group performs better than the second language learners on all
of the contexts after het. There are significant differences between the groups for performance on the
het-stop contexts without t-het-t and the het-vowel contexts. The Dutch control group perceives these
contexts significantly better than the second language learners. Table 70 shows that there is a
significant difference between the groups for performance on the het-stop contexts without t-het-t,
while the difference in performance on the het-stop contexts is not significant. For this reason, the
78
significant difference in performance on the het-stop contexts without t-het-t appears to be solely due
to the exclusion of the t-het-t contexts. This suggests that it is especially other het-stop contexts which
cause the significant difference in performance.
4.7.5.2.2 Group Results per Factor: Age of First Exposure
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners are subdivided into two groups for
age of first exposure: groups AE1 and AE2. Group AE1 are the early acquirers of Dutch (before 18
years of age; puberty learners) and group AE2 are the later acquirers (after 18 years of age; adult
learners). Table 71 shows the performance of the two groups on the contexts after het.
Table 71 Group results for performance on the contexts after het: group AE1 and AE2 (Mean in
percentages correct)
AE1 (N = 7)
AE2 (N = 27)
Stop
92.9 (SD = 4.2)
77.8 (SD = 19.4)
Vowel
98.4 (SD = 4.2)
86.8 (SD = 18.8)
Context after het
Group AE1
Table 72 shows no significant difference within group AE1 with respect to performance on the
contexts after het.
Table 72 Results of group AE1 (N = 7) for the contexts after het
Het-Stop vs. Het-Vowel
Z = -.343; p = .732
Group AE2
Table 73 shows no significant difference within group AE2 with respect to performance on the
contexts after het.
Table 73 Results of group AE2 (N = 27) for the contexts after het
Het-Stop vs. Het-Vowel
Z = -.217; p = .828
79
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups AE1, AE2 and the Dutch control group on
the contexts after het. The results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are used in
this analysis, as the 3 outliers are excluded. The outliers are all part of group AE2. Consequently,
group AE2 consists of only 24 second language learners (27 - 3). Table 74 shows the results of the
comparison of the groups analysis. Groups AE1 (N = 7), AE2 (N = 24) and the Dutch control group (N
= 15) are compared. Performance on the stops after het is given both with and without the t-het-t contexts.
Table 74 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group AE1 vs. group AE2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Significant differences are shaded
Context after het
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group AE1
(N = 7)
Group AE2
(N = 24)
Stop
91.9 (SD = 8.1)
92.9 (SD = 4.2)
83.3 (SD = 10.9)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 8.394; p = .015
Stop without t-het-t
97.3 (SD = 3.4)
96.2 (SD = 3.6)
89.4 (SD = 9.8)
χ2 = 8.390; p = .015
Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
98.4 (SD = 4.2)
90.7 (SD = 15.6)
χ2 = 7.893; p = .019
Table 74 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on all of the contexts after
het (with and without t-het-t). Table 75 is more specific by showing the results of the comparison of the
groups in pairs (Mann Whitney test).
Table 75 Comparison of the groups (Dutch control group, group AE1 and group AE2) in pairs
Significant differences are shaded (Bonferroni adjustment)
AE1 vs. AE2
AE1 vs. Dutch control
group
AE2 vs. Dutch control
group
Stop
Z = -2.245; p = .025
Z = -.109; p = .913
Z = -2.423; p = .015
Stop without t-het-t
Z = -1.643; p = .100
Z = -.735; p = .462
Z = -2.693; p = .007
Vowel
Z = -1.256; p = .209
Z = -1.464; p = .143
Z = -2.642; p = .008
Context after het
Table 75 shows no significant differences between groups AE1 and AE2 for performance on the
contexts after het. There are also no significant differences between group AE1 and the Dutch control
group for performance on the contexts after het. Thus, group AE1 performs at native level. There are
significant differences between group AE2 and the Dutch control group for performance on all of the
contexts after het (with and without t-het-t). In all cases, the Dutch control group performs significantly
better than group AE2. The fact that the difference in performance remains significant when the t-het-t
contexts are excluded from the analysis indicates that there are also other het-stop contexts which
cause difficulties for group AE2.
80
4.7.5.2.3 Group Results per Factor: Proficiency
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners are subdivided into two groups for
proficiency: groups P1 and P2. Group P1 are the second language learners with an average
proficiency level and group P2 are the second language learners with a high proficiency level. Table
76 shows the performance of the two groups on the contexts after het.
Table 76 Group results for performance on the contexts after het: group P1 and P2 (Mean in
percentages correct)
P1 (N = 14)
P2 (N = 20)
Stop
71.4 (SD = 20.9)
87.5 (SD = 13.4)
Vowel
83.3 (SD = 21.7)
93.3 (SD = 12.7)
Context after het
Group P1
Table 77 shows no significant difference within group P1 with respect to performance on the
contexts after het.
Table 77 Results of group P1 (N = 14) for the contexts after het
Het-Stop vs. Het-Vowel
Z = -.350; p = .726
Group P2
Table 78 shows no significant difference within group P2 with respect to performance on the
contexts after het.
Table 78 Results of group P2 (N = 20) for the contexts after het
Het-Stop vs. Het-Vowel
Z = -.022; p = .983
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups P1, P2 and the Dutch control group on the
contexts after het. The results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are used for
this analysis, as the 3 outliers are excluded. Two of the outliers are part of group P1 and one is part of
group P2. Consequently, group P1 consists of only 12 second language learners (14 - 2) and group
P2 of only 19 second language learners (20 - 1). Table 79 shows the results of the comparison of the
groups analysis. Groups P1 (N = 12), P2 (N = 19) and the Dutch control group (N = 15) are compared.
Performance on the stops after het is given both with and without the t-het-t contexts.
81
Table 79 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group P1 vs. group P2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Significant differences are shaded
Context after het
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group P1
(N = 12)
Group P2
(N = 19)
Stop
91.9 (SD = 8.1)
78.2 (SD = 11.2)
90.1 (SD = 7.1)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 11.809; p = .003
Stop without t-het-t
97.3 (SD = 3.4)
86.1 (SD = 11.2)
94.0 (SD = 6.2)
χ2 = 9.685; p = .008
Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
88.0 (SD = 19.2)
95.3 (SD = 9.3)
χ2 = 7.250; p = .027
Table 79 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on all of the contexts after
het (with and without t-het-t). Table 80 is more specific by showing the results of the comparison of the
groups in pairs (Mann Whitney test).
Table 80 Comparison of the groups (Dutch control group, group P1 and group P2) in pairs
Significant differences are shaded (Bonferroni adjustment)
P1 vs. P2
P1 vs. Dutch control
group
Stop
Z = -2.984; p = .003
Z = -3.027; p = .002
Z = -.712; p = .477
Stop without t-het-t
Z = -2.062; p = .039
Z = -2.867; p = .004
Z = -1.618; p = .106
Vowel
Z = -1.053; p = .292
Z = -2.701; p = .007
Z = -2.113; p = .035
Context after het
P2 vs. Dutch control
group
Table 80 shows a significant difference between groups P1 and P2 for performance on the het-stop
contexts. Group P2 perceives these contexts significantly better than group P1. The difference in
performance on the het-stop contexts without t-het-t, however, is not significant. For this reason, the
significant difference in performance on the het-stop contexts appears to be solely due to the inclusion
of the t-het-t contexts. There are also significant differences between group P1 and the Dutch control
group for performance on all of the contexts after het (with and without t-het-t). In all cases, the Dutch
control group perceives the contexts significantly better than group P1. The fact that the difference in
performance remains significant when the t-het-t contexts are excluded from the analysis indicates
that there are also other het-stop contexts which cause difficulties for group P1. There are no
significant differences between group P2 and the Dutch control group for performance on the contexts
after het. Thus, group P2 performs at native level.
82
4.7.5.2.4 Summary
This section has investigated the influence of the contexts after het on the perception of het.
The contexts after het are stops (/p/, /t/, /k/) and vowels (/a/, /ɑ/, /e/, /ε/, /ø/, /I/, /i/, /εi/, /ɔ/, /u/, /o/, /ɔu/,
/œy/, /ʏ/, /y/). In addition, two factors have been controlled for: age of first exposure and proficiency.
The comparison of the groups analysis shows that there are significant differences between
the Dutch control group and the second language learner group for performance on the het-stop
(without t-het-t) contexts and the het-vowel contexts. The Dutch control group perceives these
contexts significantly better than the second language learners. Within the Dutch control group and the
second language learner group, there are no significant differences in performance with respect to the
contexts after het.
When controlling for the factor age of first exposure, the comparison of the groups analysis
shows significant differences between group AE2 and the Dutch control group for performance on all
of the contexts after het (het-stop with and without t-het-t, het-vowel). The Dutch control group
perceives these contexts significantly better than group AE2. There are no significant differences
between group AE1 and the Dutch control group. Thus, group AE1 performs at native level. There are
also no significant differences between groups AE1 and AE2. Within groups AE1 and AE2, there are
no significant differences in performance with respect to the contexts after het.
When the factor proficiency is controlled for, the comparison of the groups analysis shows that
there is a significant difference between groups P1 and P2 for performance on the het-stop contexts.
Group P2 perceives these contexts significantly better than group P1. There are also significant
differences between the Dutch control group and group P1 for performance on all of the contexts after
het (het-stop with and without t-het-t, het-vowel). The Dutch control group perceives these contexts
significantly better than group P1. There are no significant differences between group P2 and the
Dutch control group. Thus, group P2 performs at native level. Within groups P1 and P2, there are no
significant differences in performance with respect to the contexts after het.
83
4.7.5.3 The Het-Stop Contexts
In Chapter 3, section 3.3, it was hypothesised that het should be more difficult to perceive
when followed by a /t/ than when followed by other consonants. In order to investigate whether this is
indeed the case, performance on the het-/t/ and het-/p/k/ contexts (the het-stop contexts) can be
compared.
4.7.5.3.1 Group Results
General Results
Table 81, 82 and 83 shows the performance of the Dutch control group and the second
language learners on the het-stop contexts.
Table 81 Group results for performance on the het-stop contexts (Mean in percentages correct)
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Second language learners
(N = 34)
het-t
85.2 (SD = 14.3)
71.2 (SD = 22.6)
het-p/k
98.5 (SD = 3.9)
90.5 (SD = 18.4)
Het-Stop Context
Table 82 Range of performance on the het-stop contexts (Mean in percentages correct): the Dutch
control group (N = 15)
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
het-t
67.0
100
33.0
88.9
het-p/k
89.0
100
11.0
100
Het-Stop Context
Table 83 Range of performance on the het-stop contexts (Mean in percentages correct): the second
language learners (N = 34)
Het-Stop Context
het-t
het-p/k
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
0
100
100
77.8
22.0
100
78.0
100
The Dutch Control Group
Table 84 shows no significant difference within the Dutch control group with respect to
performance on the het-stop contexts.
Table 84 Results of the Dutch control group (N = 15) for the het-stop contexts
Het-/t/ vs. Het-/p/k/
Z = -.344; p = .731
84
The Second Language Learners
Table 85 shows no significant difference within the second language learner group with
respect to performance on the het-stop contexts.
Table 85 Results of the second language learner group (N = 34) for the het-stop contexts
Het-/t/ vs. Het-/p/k/
Z = -.232; p = .816
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of the Dutch control group and the second language
learners on the het-stop contexts. The results of only 31 second language learner participants are
used (34 - 3), as the 3 outliers are excluded from the analysis. Table 86 shows the results of the
comparison of the groups analysis. The second language learners (N = 31) are compared to the Dutch
control group (N = 15). Performance on the het-/t/ contexts is given both with and without the t-het-t
contexts.
Table 86 Comparison of the groups for performance on the het-stop contexts
The Dutch control group vs. the second language learners
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Mann Whitney test
Significant differences are shaded
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Second language
learners (N = 31)
Dutch control group vs.
second language learners
het-/t/
85.2 (SD = 14.3)
75.6 (SD = 16.8)
Z = -1.669; p = .095
het-/t/ without t-het-t
95.6 (SD = 7.6)
84.4 (SD = 15.5)
Z = -2.470; p = .014
het-/p/k/
98.5 (SD = 3.9)
95.3 (SD = 8.0)
Z = -1.273; p = .203
Het-Stop Context
Table 86 shows that the Dutch control group performs better than the second language learners on all
of the het-stop contexts. There is a significant difference between the groups for performance on the
het-/t/ contexts without t-het-t. The Dutch control group perceives these contexts significantly better
than the second language learners. Table 86 shows a significant difference between the groups for
performance on the het-/t/ contexts without t-het-t, while the difference in performance on the het-/t/
contexts is not significant. For this reason, the significant difference in performance on the het-/t/
contexts without t-het-t appears to be solely due to the exclusion of the t-het-t contexts. This suggests
that it is other het-/t/ contexts which cause the significant difference in performance.
85
4.7.5.3.2 Group Results per Factor: Age of First Exposure
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners are subdivided into two groups for
age of first exposure: groups AE1 and AE2. Group AE1 are the early acquirers of Dutch (before 18
years of age; puberty learners) and group AE2 are the later acquirers (after 18 years of age; adult
learners). Table 87 shows the performance of the two groups on the het-stop contexts.
Table 87 Group results for performance on the het-stop contexts: group AE1 and AE2 (Mean in
percentages correct)
AE1 (N = 7)
AE2 (N = 27)
het-/t/
85.7 (SD = 8.4)
67.5 (SD = 23.7)
het-/p/k/
100 (SD = 0.0)
88.1 (SD = 20.0)
Het-Stop Context
Group AE1
Table 88 shows no significant difference within group AE1 with respect to performance on the
het-stop contexts.
Table 88 Results of group AE1 (N = 7) for the het-stop contexts
Het-/t/ vs. Het-/p/k/
Z = -.171; p = .864
Group AE2
Table 89 shows no significant difference within group AE2 with respect to performance on the
het-stop contexts.
Table 89 Results of group AE2 (N = 27) for the het-stop contexts
Het-/t/ vs. Het-/p/k/
Z = -.024; p = .981
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups AE1, AE2 and the Dutch control group on
the het-stop contexts. The results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are used in
this analysis, as the 3 outliers are excluded. The outliers are all part of group AE2. Consequently,
group AE2 consists of only 24 second language learners (27 - 3). Table 90 shows the results of the
comparison of the groups analysis. Groups AE1 (N = 7), AE2 (N = 24) and the Dutch control group (N
= 15) are compared. Performance on the het-/t/ contexts is given both with and without the t-het-t contexts.
86
Table 90 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group AE1 vs. group AE2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Significant differences are shaded
Het-Stop Context
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group AE1
(N = 7)
Group AE2
(N = 24)
het-/t/
85.2 (SD = 14.3)
85.7 (SD = 8.4)
72.7 (SD = 17.6)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 6.184; p = .045
het-/t/ without t-het-t
95.6 (SD = 7.6)
90.5 (SD = 8.9)
82.6 (SD = 16.7)
χ2 = 6.943; p = .031
het-/p/k/
98.5 (SD = 3.9)
100 (SD = 0.0)
94.0 (SD = 8.7)
χ2 = 5.806; p = .055
Table 90 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on the het-/t/ contexts
(with and without the t-het-t contexts). Table 91 is more specific by showing the results of the
comparison of the groups in pairs (Mann Whitney test).
Table 91 Comparison of the groups (Dutch control group, group AE1 and group AE2) in pairs
Significant differences are shaded (Bonferroni adjustment)
AE1 vs. AE2
AE1 vs. Dutch control
group
AE2 vs. Dutch control
group
het-/t/
Z = -1.963; p = .050
Z = .000; p = 1.000
Z = -2.056; p = .040
het-/t/ without t-het-t
Z = -1.026; p = .305
Z = -1.352; p = .176
Z = -2.536; p = .011
het-/p/k/
Z = -1.865; p = .062
Z = -.990; p = .322
Z = -1.737; p = .082
Het-Stop Context
Table 91 shows no significant differences between groups AE1 and AE2 for performance on the hetstop contexts. There are also no significant differences between group AE1 and the Dutch control
group for performance on the contexts after het. Thus, group AE1 performs at native level. There is a
significant difference between group AE2 and the Dutch control group for performance on the het-/t/
contexts (without t-het-t). The Dutch control group performs significantly better on these contexts than
group AE2. Table 91 shows a significant difference between group AE2 and the Dutch control group
for performance on the het-/t/ contexts without t-het-t, while the difference in performance on the het-/t/
contexts is not significant. For this reason, the significant difference in performance on the het-/t/
contexts without t-het-t appears to be solely due to the exclusion of the t-het-t contexts. This suggests
that it is other het-/t/ contexts which cause the significant difference in performance. It should be
observed that the Kruskal-Wallis test shows a significant difference between the groups for
performance on the het-/t/ contexts (Table 90), and that this difference is not borne out by the MannWhitney test (Table 91).
87
4.7.5.3.3 Group Results per Factor: Proficiency
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners are subdivided into two groups for
proficiency: groups P1 and P2. Group P1 are the second language learners with an average
proficiency level and group P2 are the second language learners with a high proficiency level. Table
92 shows the performance of the two groups on the het-stop contexts.
Table 92 Group results for performance on the het-stop contexts: group P1 and P2 (Mean in
percentages correct)
P1 (N = 14)
P2 (N = 20)
het-/t/
55.6 (SD = 25.4)
82.2 (SD = 11.6)
het-/p/k/
87.3 (SD = 18.9)
92.8 (SD = 18.1)
Het-Stop Context
Group P1
Table 93 shows no significant difference within group P1 with respect to performance on the
het-stop contexts.
Table 93 Results of group P1 (N = 14) for the het-stop contexts
Het-/t/ vs. Het-/p/k/
Z = -.039; p = .969
Group P2
Table 94 shows no significant difference within group P2 with respect to performance on the
het-stop contexts.
Table 94 Results of group P2 (N = 20) for the het-stop contexts
Het-/t/ vs. Het-/p/k/
Z = -.040; p = .968
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups P1, P2 and the Dutch control group on the
het-stop contexts. The results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are used for this
analysis, as the 3 outliers are excluded. Two of the outliers are part of group P1 and one is part of
group P2. Consequently, group P1 consists of only 12 second language learners (14 - 2) and group
P2 of only 19 second language learners (20 - 1). Table 95 shows the results of the comparison of the
groups analysis. Groups P1 (N = 12), P2 (N = 19) and the Dutch control group (N = 15) are compared.
Performance on the het-/t/ contexts is given both with and without the t-het-t contexts.
88
Table 95 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group P1 vs. group P2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Significant differences are shaded
Het-Stop Context
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group P1
(N = 12)
Group P2
(N = 19)
het-/t/
85.2 (SD = 14.3)
63.0 (SD = 17.9)
83.6 (SD = 10.0)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 12.837; p = .002
het-/t/ without t-het-t
95.6 (SD = 7.6)
75.0 (SD = 18.1)
90.4 (SD = 10.1)
χ2 = 11.455; p = .003
het-/p/k/
98.5 (SD = 3.9)
93.5 (SD = 8.8)
96.5 (SD = 7.5)
χ2 = 3.221; p = .200
Table 95 shows significant differences between the groups for performance the het-/t/ contexts (with
and without t-het-t). Table 96 is more specific by showing the results of the comparison of the groups
in pairs (Mann Whitney test).
Table 96 Comparison of the groups (Dutch control group, group P1 and group P2) in pairs
Significant differences are shaded (Bonferroni adjustment)
P1 vs. P2
P1 vs. Dutch control
group
P2 vs. Dutch control
group
het-/t/
Z = -3.349; p = .001
Z = -2.953; p = .003
Z = -.378; p = .706
het-/t/ without t-het-t
Z = -2.449; p = .014
Z = -3.054; p = .002
Z = -1.571; p = .116
het-/p/k/
Z = -1.143; p = .253
Z = -1.751; p = .080
Z = -.680; p = .497
Het-Stop Context
Table 96 shows a significant difference between groups P1 and P2 for performance on the het-/t/
contexts (with and without t-het-t). Group P2 perceives these contexts significantly better than group
P1. There are also significant differences between group P1 and the Dutch control group for
performance on the het-/t/ contexts (with and without t-het-t). The Dutch control group perceives these
contexts significantly better than group P1. There are no significant differences between group P2 and
the Dutch control group for performance on the het-stop contexts. Thus, group P2 performs at native
level.
4.7.5.3.4 Summary
This section has investigated the influence of the het-stop contexts on the perception of het.
The influence of the het-/t/ contexts and the het-/p/k/ contexts has been compared. In addition, two
factors have been controlled for: age of first exposure and proficiency.
The comparison of the groups analysis shows a significant difference between the Dutch
control group and the second language learner group for performance on the het-/t/ contexts (without
the t-het-t contexts). The Dutch control group perceives these contexts significantly better than the
second language learners. Within the Dutch control group and the second language learner group, no
significant differences in performance with respect to the het-stop contexts have been found.
When the factor age of first exposure is controlled for, the comparison of the groups analysis
shows a significant difference between group AE2 and the Dutch control group for performance on the
het-/t/ contexts (with and without the t-het-t contexts). The Dutch control group perceives these
contexts significantly better than group AE2. There is no significant difference between group AE1 and
89
the Dutch control group for performance on the het-stop contexts. Thus, group AE1 performs at native
level on these contexts. There is also no significant difference in performance between groups AE1
and AE2. Within groups AE1 and AE2, there are no significant differences in performance with respect
to the het-stop contexts.
When the factor proficiency is controlled for, the comparison of the groups analysis shows a
significant difference between groups P1 and P2 for performance on the het-/t/ contexts (with and
without t-het-t). There is also a significant difference between group P1 and the Dutch control group
with respect to performance on the het-/t/ contexts (with and without t-het-t). There are no significant
differences between group P2 and the Dutch control group for performance on het het-stop contexts.
Thus, group P2 performs at native level. Within groups P1 and P2, there are no significant differences
in performance with respect to the contexts after het.
4.7.5.4 The Full Contexts of Het
Section 4.7.5.1 has discussed the contexts before het (the final phonemes of the manner
adverbs) and section 4.7.5.2 has discussed the contexts after het (the initial phonemes of the nonce
nouns). The full contexts of het are the final phonemes of the manner adverbs and the initial
phonemes of the nonce nouns taken together. Thus, the phonetic categories before and after het as
discussed in sections 4.7.5.1 and 4.7.5.2 can be combined.
Table 97 shows the phonetic categories of the full contexts of het.
Table 97 The phonetic categories of the full contexts of het
Full contexts of het
Before het
After het
Stops
Stops
Stops
Vowels
Nasals
Stops
Nasals
Vowels
Fricatives
Stops
Fricatives
Vowels
4.7.5.4.1 Group Results
General Results
Tables 98, 99 and 100 show the performance of the Dutch control group and the second language
learners on the full contexts of het.
90
Table 98 Group results for performance on the full contexts of het (Mean in percentages correct)
Full context of het
Stop-Stop
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Second language learners
(N = 34)
84.2 (SD = 16.0)
77.2 (SD = 19.1)
Stop-Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
87.1 (SD = 22.5)
Nasal-Stop
97.8 (SD = 5.9)
88.2 (SD = 20.7)
Nasal-Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
90.2 (SD = 19.3)
Fricative-Stop
98.3 (SD = 6.5)
77.2 (SD = 23.3)
Fricative-Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
97.1 (SD = 17.2)
Table 99 Range of performance on the full contexts of het (Mean in percentages correct): the Dutch
control group (N = 15)
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
Stop-Stop
63
100
38
87.5
Stop-Vowel
100
100
-
-
Nasal-Stop
83
100
17
100
Nasal-Vowel
100
100
-
-
Fricative-Stop
75
100
25
100
Fricative-Vowel
100
100
-
-
Full context of het
Table 100 Range of performance on the full contexts of het (Mean in percentages correct): the second
language learners (N = 34)
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
Stop-Stop
25
100
75
75
Stop-Vowel
20
100
80
100
Nasal-Stop
0
100
100
100
Nasal-Vowel
33
100
67
100
Fricative-Stop
25
100
75
75
Fricative-Vowel
0
100
100
100
Full context of het
The Dutch Control Group
Table 101 shows that the Dutch control group perceives the stop-het vowel contexts
significantly better than the fricative-het-stop contexts. In addition, the Dutch control group perceives
the nasal-het-stop contexts significantly better than the fricative-het-stop contexts. The Dutch control
group also perceives the nasal-het-vowel contexts significantly better than the fricative-het-stop
contexts. Finally, the Dutch control group perceives the fricative-het-vowel contexts significantly better
than the fricative-het-stop contexts. Thus, the Dutch control group especially appears to have
difficulties with the fricative-het-stop contexts.
91
Table 101 Results of the Dutch control group (N = 15) for the full contexts of het
Significant differences are shaded
Full context of
het
Stop-Stop
Stop-Vowel
Nasal-Stop
Nasal-Vowel
Stop-Stop
-
Stop-Vowel
-
Z = -.479;
p = .632
-
Nasal-Stop
-
-
Z= -.144;
p = .885
Z = -1.907;
p = .057
-
Nasal-Vowel
-
-
-
Z = -.479;
p = .632
Z = .000;
p = 1.000
Z = -1.907;
p = .057
-
Fricative-Stop
-
-
-
-
Fricative-Vowel
-
-
-
-
FricativeStop
Z = .000;
p = 1.000
Z = -2.828;
p = .005
Z = -1.993;
p = .046
Z = -2.828;
p = .005
-
FricativeVowel
Z = -.479;
p = .632
Z = .000;
p = 1.000
Z = -1.907;
p = .057
Z = .000;
p = 1.000
Z = -2.828;
p = .005
-
The Second Language Learners
Table 102 shows no significant differences within group AE1 with respect to performance on
the full contexts of het.
Table 102 Results of the second language learners (N = 34) for the full contexts of het
Full context of
het
Stop-Stop
Stop-Vowel
Nasal-Stop
Nasal-Vowel
Stop-Stop
-
Stop-Vowel
-
Z = -.526;
p = .599
-
Nasal-Stop
-
-
Z = -.328;
p = .743
Z = -1.127;
p = .260
-
Nasal-Vowel
-
-
-
Z = -.566;
p = .571
Z = -1.585;
p = .113
Z = -1.451;
p = .147
-
Fricative-Stop
-
-
-
-
Fricative-Vowel
-
-
-
-
FricativeStop
Z = -.188;
p = .851
Z = -.549;
p = .583
Z = -.163;
p = .870
Z = -1.001;
p = .317
-
FricativeVowel
Z = -.473;
p = .636
Z = -.044;
p = .965
Z = -1.169;
p = .242
Z = -1.106;
p = .269
Z = -.182;
p = .855
-
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of the Dutch control group and the second language
learner group on the full contexts of het. The results of only 31 second language learner participants
are used (34 - 3) for the analysis, as the 3 outliers are excluded. Table 103 shows the results of the
comparison of the groups analysis. The second language learner group (N = 31) is compared to the
Dutch control group (N = 15). Performance on the full contexts of het is given both with and without the
t-het-t contexts.
92
Table 103 The Dutch control group vs. the second language learners
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Mann Whitney test
Significant differences are shaded
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Second language
learners (N = 31)
Dutch control group vs.
second language learners
Stop-Stop
84.2 (SD = 16.0)
81.1 (SD = 14.7)
Z = -.676; p = .499
Stop-Stop without t-het-t
96.0 (SD = 8.3)
94.8 (SD = 10.3)
Z = -.245; p = .806
Stop-Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
90.3 (SD = 19.9)
Z = -2.130; p = .033
Nasal-Stop
98.8 (SD = 5.9)
93.6 (SD = 9.3)
Z = -1.571; p = .116
Nasal-Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
93.6 (SD = 13.4)
Z = -1.807; p = .071
Fricative-Stop
98.3 (SD = 6.5)
82.3 (SD = 17.3)
Z = -3.260; p = .001
Fricative-Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
Z = .000; p = 1.000
Full context of het
Table 103 shows that the Dutch control group performs better than the second language learners on
all of the full contexts of het except the fricative-het-vowel contexts. Both groups perform equally well
on the fricative-het-vowel contexts with a score of 100% correct (SD = 0.0). There are significant
differences between the groups for performance on the stop-het-vowel and fricative-het-stop contexts.
In both cases, the Dutch control group performs significantly better than the second language learners.
4.7.5.4.2 Group Results per Factor: Age of First Exposure
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners are subdivided into two groups for
age of first exposure: groups AE1 and AE2. Group AE1 are the early acquirers of Dutch (before 18
years of age; puberty learners) and group AE2 are the later acquirers (after 18 years of age; adult
learners). Table 104 shows the performance of the groups on the full contexts of het.
Table 104 Group results for performance on the full contexts of het: group AE1 and AE2 (Mean in
percentages correct)
AE1 (N = 7)
AE2 (N = 27)
91.2 (SD = 6.1)
73.6 (SD = 19.7)
Stop-Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
83.7 (SD = 24.2)
Nasal-Stop
97.6 (SD = 6.3)
85.8 (SD = 22.5)
Nasal-Vowel
95.2 (SD = 12.6)
88.9 (SD = 20.7)
Fricative-Stop
89.3 (SD = 13.4)
74.1 (SD = 24.5)
100 (SD = 0.0)
96.3 (SD = 19.2)
Full context of het
Stop-Stop
Fricative-Vowel
93
Group AE1
Table 105 shows no significant differences within group AE1 with respect to performance on
the full contexts of het.
Table 105 Results of group AE1(N = 7) for the full contexts of het
Full context of
het
Stop-Stop
Stop-Vowel
Nasal-Stop
Nasal-Vowel
Stop-Stop
-
Stop-Vowel
-
Z = -.176;
p = .860
-
Nasal-Stop
-
-
Z = -.694;
p = .488
Z = -1.265;
p = .206
-
Nasal-Vowel
-
-
-
Z = -.694;
p = .488
Z = -1.265;
p = .206
Z = .000;
p = 1.000
-
Fricative-Stop
-
-
-
-
Fricative-Vowel
-
-
-
-
FricativeStop
Z = -.171;
p = .864
Z = -.694;
p = .488
Z = -.171;
p = .864
Z = -.171;
p = .864
-
FricativeVowel
Z = -.176;
p = .860
Z = .000;
p = 1.000
Z = -1.265;
p = .206
Z = -1.265;
p = .206
Z = -.694;
p = .488
-
Group AE2
Table 106 shows no significant differences within group AE2 with respect to performance on
the full contexts of het.
Table 106 Results of group AE2 (N = 27) for the full contexts of het
Full context of
het
Stop-Stop
Stop-Vowel
Nasal-Stop
Nasal-Vowel
Stop-Stop
-
Stop-Vowel
-
Z = -.169;
p = .866
-
Nasal-Stop
-
-
Z = -.196;
p = .845
Z = -.757;
p = .449
-
Nasal-Vowel
-
-
-
Z = -.277;
p = .782
Z = -.949;
p = .343
Z = -.597;
p = .550
-
Fricative-Stop
-
-
-
-
Fricative-Vowel
-
-
-
-
FricativeStop
Z = -.025;
p = .980
Z = -.396;
p = .692
Z = .000;
p = 1.000
Z = -.556;
p = .578
-
FricativeVowel
Z = -.400;
p = .689
Z = -.888;
p = .375
Z = -1.399;
p = .162
Z = -.703;
p = .482
Z = -.852;
p = .394
-
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups AE1, AE2 and the Dutch control group on
the full contexts of het. The results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are used in
this analysis, as the 3 outliers are excluded. The outliers are all part of group AE2. Consequently,
group AE2 consists of only 24 second language learners (27 - 3). Table 107 shows the results of the
comparison of the groups analysis. Groups AE1 (N = 7), AE2 (N = 24) and the Dutch control group (N
= 15) are compared. Performance on the full contexts of het is given both with and without the t-het-t
contexts.
94
Table 107 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group AE1 vs. group AE2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Significant differences are shaded
Full context of het
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group AE1
(N = 7)
Group AE2
(N = 24)
Stop-Stop
84.2 (SD = 16.0)
91.2 (SD = 6.1)
78.1 (SD = 15.3)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 4.287; p = .117
Stop-Stop without t-het-t
96.0 (SD = 8.3)
100 (SD = 0.0)
93.3 (SD = 11.3)
χ2 = 2.746; p = .253
Stop-Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
87.5 (SD = 21.9)
χ2 = 8.594; p = .014
Nasal-Stop
97.8 (SD = 5.9)
97.6 (SD = 6.3)
92.4 (SD = 9.8)
χ2 = 4.496; p = .106
Nasal-Vowel
100 (SD - 0.0)
95.2 (SD = 12.6)
93.1 (SD = 13.8)
χ2 = 3.467; p = .177
Fricative-Stop
98.3 (SD = 6.5)
89.3 (SD = 13.4)
80.2 (SD = 18.0)
χ2 =11.911; p = .003
Fricative-Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
χ2 = .000; p = 1.000
Table 107 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on the stop-het-vowel
and fricative-het-stop contexts. Table 108 is more specific by showing the results of the comparison of
the groups in pairs (Mann Whitney test).
Table 108 Comparison of the groups (Dutch control group, group AE1 and group AE2) in pairs
Significant differences are shaded (Bonferroni adjustment)
AE1 vs. AE2
AE1 vs. Dutch control
group
AE2 vs. Dutch control
group
Stop-Vowel
Z = -1.723; p = .085
Z = .000; p = 1.000
Z = -2.457; p = .014
Fricative-Stop
Z = -1.165; p = .244
Z = -2.003; p = .045
Z = -3.383; p = .001
Full context of het
Table 108 shows no significant differences in performance between groups AE1 and AE2. There are
also no significant differences in performance between group AE1 and the Dutch control group. Thus,
group AE1 performs at native level. There are significant differences between group AE2 and the
Dutch group for performance on the stop-het-vowel and the fricative-het-stop contexts. The Dutch
control group perceives these contexts significantly better than group AE2.
4.7.5.4.3 Group Results per Factor: Proficiency
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners are subdivided into two groups for
proficiency: groups P1 and P2. Group P1 are the second language learners with an average
proficiency level and group P2 are the second language learners with a high proficiency level. Table
109 shows the performance of the two groups on the full contexts of het.
95
Table 109 Group results for performance on the full contexts of het: group P1 and P2 (Mean in
percentages correct)
P1 (N = 14)
P2 (N = 20)
66.1 (SD = 18.6)
85.0 (SD = 15.5)
Stop-Vowel
80.0 (SD - 27.2)
92.0 (SD = 17.7)
Nasal-Stop
79.8 (SD = 27.1)
94.2 (SD = 12.4)
Nasal-Vowel
83.3 (SD = 25.3)
95.0 (SD = 12.2)
Fricative-Stop
69.6 (SD = 24.4)
82.5 (SD = 21.6)
100 (SD = 0.0)
95.0 (SD = 22.4)
Full context of het
Stop-Stop
Fricative-Vowel
Group P1
Table 110 shows no significant differences within group P1 with respect to performance on the
full contexts of het.
Table 110 Results of group P1(N = 14) for the full contexts of het
Full context of
het
Stop-Stop
Stop-Vowel
Nasal-Stop
Nasal-Vowel
Stop-Stop
-
Stop-Vowel
-
Z = -.598;
p = .550
-
Nasal-Stop
-
-
Z = -.198;
p = .843
Z = -.095;
p = .925
-
Nasal-Vowel
-
-
-
Z = -.045;
p = .964
Z = -.321;
p = .748
Z = -.443;
p = .658
-
Fricative-Stop
-
-
-
-
Fricative-Vowel
-
-
-
-
FricativeStop
Z = .000;
p = 1.000
Z = -.189;
p = .850
Z = -.315;
p = .753
Z = -.237;
p = .812
-
FricativeVowel
Z = -.190;
p = .850
Z = -.223;
p = .823
Z = -.319;
p = .749
Z = -.486;
p = .627
Z = -.542;
p = .588
-
Group P2
Table 111 shows that group P2 perceives the nasal-het-vowel contexts significantly better
than the stop-het-vowel contexts. Group P2 also perceives the nasal-het-vowel contexts significantly
better than the nasal-het-stop contexts. Finally, group P2 perceives the nasal-het-vowel contexts
significantly better than the fricative-het-vowel contexts. Thus, group P2 especially seems to have
difficulties with the stop-het-vowel contexts, the nasal-het-stop contexts and the fricative-het-vowel
contexts. The nasal-het-vowel contexts appear to cause the least difficulties for group P2.
96
Table 111 Results of group P2(N = 20) for the full contexts of het
Significant differences are shaded
Full context of
het
Stop-Stop
Stop-Vowel
Nasal-Stop
Nasal-Vowel
Stop-Stop
-
Stop-Vowel
-
Z = -.204;
p = .838
-
Nasal-Stop
-
-
Z = -.243;
p = .808
Z = -1.905;
p = .057
-
Nasal-Vowel
-
-
-
Z = -.122;
p = .903
Z = -2.044;
p = .041
Z = -2.595;
p = .009
-
Fricative-Stop
-
-
-
-
Fricative-Vowel
-
-
-
-
FricativeStop
Z = -.202;
p = .840
Z = -.558;
p = .577
Z = -.244;
p = .807
Z = -.794;
p = .427
-
FricativeVowel
Z = -.578;
p = .563
Z = -1.777;
p = .076
Z = -1.070;
p = .285
Z = -2.029;
p = .042
Z = -1.235;
p = .217
-
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups P1, P2 and the Dutch control group on the
full contexts of het. The results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are used for
this analysis, as the 3 outliers are excluded. Two of the outliers are part of group P1 and one is part of
group P2. Consequently, group P1 consists of only 12 second language learners (14 - 2) and group
P2 of only 19 second language learners (20 - 1). Table 112 shows the results of the comparison of the
groups analysis. Groups P1 (N = 12), P2 (N = 19) and the Dutch control group (N = 15) are compared.
Performance on the full contexts of het is given both with and without the t-het-t contexts.
Table 112 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group P1 vs. group P2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Significant differences are shaded
Full context of het
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group P1
(N = 12)
Group P2
(N = 19)
Stop-Stop
84.2 (SD = 16.0)
70.8 (SD = 14.4)
87.5 (SD = 11.0)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 8.664; p = .013
Stop-Stop without t-het-t
96.0 (SD - 8.3)
90.0 (SD = 13.5)
97.9 (SD = 6.3)
χ2 = 4.442; p = .109
Stop-Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
83.3 (SD = 26.7)
94.7 (SD = 13.1)
χ2 = 7.856; p = .020
Nasal-Stop
97.8 (SD = 5.9)
88.9 (SD = 10.9)
96.5 (SD = 7.0)
χ2 = 7.775; p = .020
Nasal-Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
91.7 (SD = 15.1)
94.7 (SD = 12.5)
χ2 = 3.804; p = .149
Fricative-Stop
98.3 (SD = 6.5)
77.1 (SD = 16.7)
85.5 (SD = 17.3)
χ2 = 12.808; p = .002
Fricative-Vowel
100 (SD = 0.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
100 (SD = 0.0)
χ2 = .000; p = 1.000
Table 112 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on the stop-het-stop
contexts, the stop-het-vowel contexts, the nasal-het-stop contexts and the fricative-het-stop contexts.
Table 113 is more specific by showing the results of the comparison of the groups in pairs (Mann
Whitney test).
97
Table 113 Comparison of the groups (Dutch control group, group P1 and group P2) in pairs
Significant differences are shaded (Bonferroni adjustment)
P1 vs. P2
P1 vs. Dutch control
group
P2 vs. Dutch control
group
Stop-Stop
Z = -3.036; p = .002
Z = -1.982; p = .047
Z = -.417; p = .677
Stop-Vowel
Z = -1.558; p = .119
Z = -2.703; p = .007
Z = -1.586; p = .113
Nasal-Stop
Z = -2.159; p = .031
Z = -2.458; p = .014
Z = -.578; p = .564
Fricative-Stop
Z = -1.400; p = .162
Z = -3.582; p = .000
Z = -2.567; p = .010
Full context of het
Table 113 shows a significant difference between groups P1 and P2 for performance on the stop-hetstop contexts. Group P2 perceives these contexts significantly better than group P1. Because the
Kruskal-Wallis test shows a significant difference between the groups for performance on the stop-hetstop contexts, but no significant difference for these contexts when the t-het-t contexts are excluded
from the analysis, the significant difference between groups P1 and P2 for performance on the stophet-stop contexts appears to be solely due to the inclusion of the t-het-t contexts. There are also
significant differences between group P1 and the Dutch control group for performance on the stop-hetvowel, nasal-het-stop and fricative-het-stop contexts. The Dutch control group perceives these
contexts significantly better than group P1. There is also a significant difference between group P2
and the Dutch control group for performance on the fricative-het-stop contexts. The Dutch control
group perceives these contexts significantly better than group P2.
4.7.5.4.4 Summary
This section has investigated the influence of the full contexts of het on the perception of het.
The full contexts of het are a combination of the contexts before and after het. In addition, two factors
have been controlled for: age of first exposure and proficiency.
The comparison of the groups analysis shows that there are significant differences between
the Dutch control group and the second language learner group for performance on the stop-het-vowel
and fricative-het-stop contexts. The Dutch control group perceives these contexts significantly better
than the second language learners. Within the Dutch control group, there are significant differences
between performance on the stop-het-vowel and the fricative-het-stop contexts, performance on the
nasal-het-stop and the fricative-het-stop contexts, performance on the nasal-het-vowel and the
fricative-het-stop contexts and performance on the fricative-het-stop and fricative-het-vowel contexts.
In all cases, the Dutch control group perceives the fricative-het-stop contexts significantly worse than
the other contexts of het. Within the second language learner group, there are no significant
differences in performance with respect to the full contexts of het.
When controlling for the factor age of first exposure, the comparison of the groups analysis
shows significant differences between the Dutch control group and group AE2 for performance on the
stop-het-vowel and fricative-het-stop contexts. The Dutch control group perceives these contexts
significantly better than group AE2. There are no significant differences in performance between group
AE1 and the Dutch control group. This means that group AE1 performs at native level. There are also
98
no significant differences between groups AE1 and AE2. Within groups AE1 and AE2, there are no
significant differences in performance with respect to the full contexts of het.
When the factor proficiency is controlled for, the comparison of the groups analysis shows that
there is a significant difference between groups P1 and P2 for performance on the stop-het-stop
contexts. Group P2 perceives these contexts significantly better than group P1. There are also
significant differences between the Dutch control group and group P1 for performance on the stop-hetvowel contexts, the nasal-het-stop contexts and the fricative-het-stop contexts. The Dutch control
group perceives these contexts significantly better than group P1. Finally, there is also a significant
difference between the Dutch control group and group P2 for performance on the fricative-het-stop
contexts. The Dutch control group perceives these contexts significantly better than group P2. Within
group P1, there are no significant differences in performance with respect to the full contexts of het.
Within group P2, there are significant differences between performance on the stop-het-vowel and
nasal-het-vowel contexts, the nasal-het-stop and nasal-het-vowel contexts and the nasal-het-vowel
and fricative-het-vowel contexts. In all cases, group P2 perceives the nasal-het-vowel contexts
significantly better than the other contexts of het.
4.7.5.5 The Stop-Het-Stop Contexts
The previous sections illustrate that, in some cases, the in-and exclusion of the t-het-t contexts
from the analysis has an effect on the statistical results. Therefore, it is useful to have a closer look at
performance on the stop-het-stop contexts in general and the t-het-t contexts in particular.
This section compares the t-het-t contexts (t-het-tef, t-het-taaf, t-het-techt) to the t-het-p/k
contexts (t-het-pank, t-het-parp, t-het-kag) and the k-het-p/t contexts (k-het-puig, k-het-tirs). Table 114
shows the stop-het-stop contexts subdivided into the three different categories.
Table 114 The stop-het-stop contexts
t-het-t contexts
t-het-p/k contexts
k-het-p/t contexts
t-het-tef
t-het-pank
k-het-puig
t-het-taaf
t-het-parp
k-het-tirs
t-het-techt
t-het-kag
4.7.5.5.1 Group Results
General Results
Tables 115, 116 and 117 show the performance of the Dutch control group and the second
language learner group on the t-het-t contexts and the other stop-het-stop contexts.
99
Table 115 Group results for performance on the stop-het-stop contexts (Mean in percentages correct)
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Second language learners
(N = 34)
64.4 (SD = 40.8)
54.9 (SD = 34.7)
-t-het-p/k
97.8 (SD = 8.6)
92.2 (SD = 16.5)
-k-het-p/t
93.3 (SD = 17.6)
88.2 (SD = 27.7)
Stop-het-Stop Context
-t-het-t
Table 116 Range of performance on the stop-het-stop contexts (Mean in percentages correct): the
Dutch control group (N = 15)
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
-t-het-t
0
100
100
66.7
-t-het-p/k
67
100
33
100
-k-het-p/t
50
100
50
100
Stop-het-Stop Context
Table 117 Range of performance on the stop-het-stop contexts (Mean in percentages correct): the
second language learners (N = 34)
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
-t-het-t
0
100
100
66.7
-t-het-p/k
33
100
67
100
-k-het-p/t
0
100
100
100
Stop-het-Stop Context
The Dutch Control Group
Table 118 shows that the Dutch control group perceives the t-het-p/k contexts significantly
better than the k-het-p/t contexts.
Table 118 Results of the Dutch control group (N = 15) for the stop-het-stop contexts
Significant differences are shaded
t-het-t
t-het-p/k
k-het-p/t
t-het-t
-
Z = .000; p = 1.000
Z = -.057; p = .954
t-het-p/k
-
-
Z = -1.993; p = .046
k-het-p/t
-
-
-
Stop-het-Stop context
100
The Second Language Learner Group
Table 119 shows that the second language learner group perceives the t-het-p/k contexts
significantly better than the k-het-p/t contexts.
Table 119 Results of the second language learner group (N = 34) for the stop-het-stop contexts
Significant differences are shaded
t-het-t
t-het-p/k
k-het-p/t
t-het-t
-
Z = -1.057; p = .291
Z = -.190; p = .849
t-het-p/k
-
-
Z = -2.898; p = .004
k-het-p/t
-
-
-
Stop-het-Stop context
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of the Dutch control group and the second language
learners on the stop-het-stop contexts. The results of only 31 second language learner participants are
used (34 - 3), as the 3 outliers are excluded from the analysis. Table 120 shows the results of the
comparison of the groups analysis. The second language learners (N = 31) are compared to the Dutch
controls (N = 15).
Table 120 The Dutch control group vs. the second language learners
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Mann Whitney test
Dutch control group
(N = 15)
Second language
learners (N = 31)
Dutch control group vs.
second language learners
t-het-t
64.4 (SD = 40.8)
58.1 (SD = 33.3)
Z = -.756; p = .450
t-het-p/k
97.8 (SD = 8.6)
95.7 (SD = 11.4)
Z = -.630; p = .529
k-het-p/t
93.3 (SD = 17.6)
93.6 (SD = 17.0)
Z = -.040; p = .968
Stop-het-Stop Context
Table 120 shows no significant differences between the Dutch control group and the second language
learners for performance on the stop-het-stop contexts. This means that the two groups have a similar
perception of these contexts.
4.7.5.5.2 Group Results per Factor: Age of First Exposure
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners are subdivided into two groups for
age of first exposure: groups AE1 and AE2. Group AE1 are the early acquirers of Dutch (before 18
years of age; puberty learners) and group AE2 are the later acquirers (after 18 years of age; adult
learners). Table 121 shows the performance of the two groups on the stop-het-stop contexts.
101
Table 121 Group results for performance on the stop-het-stop contexts: group AE1 and AE2 (Mean in
percentages correct)
AE1 (N = 7)
AE2 (N = 27)
76.2 (SD = 16.3)
49.4 (SD = 36.2)
t-het-p/k
100 (SD = 0.0)
90.1 (SD = 18.1)
k-het-p/t
100 (SD = 0.0)
85.2 (SD = 30.4)
Stop-het-Stop Context
t-het-t
Group AE1
Table 122 shows no significant differences within group AE1 with respect to performance on
the stop-het-stop contexts.
Table 122 Results of group AE1 (N = 7) for the stop-het-stop contexts
t-het-t
t-het-p/k
k-het-p/t
t-het-t
-
Z = -.176; p = .860
Z = -.176; p = .860
t-het-p/k
-
-
Z = .000; p = 1.000
k-het-p/t
-
-
-
Stop-het-Stop context
Group AE2
Table 123 shows that group AE2 perceives the t-het-p/k contexts significantly better than the
k-het-p/t contexts.
Table 123 Results of group AE2 (N = 27) for the stop-het-stop contexts
Significant differences are shaded
t-het-t
t-het-p/k
k-het-p/t
t-het-t
-
Z = -.304; p = .761
Z = -.229; p = .819
t-het-p/k
-
-
Z = -2.117; p = .034
k-het-p/t
-
-
-
Stop-het-Stop context
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups AE1, AE2 and the Dutch control group on
the stop-het-stop contexts. The results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are
used in this analysis, as the 3 outliers are excluded. The outliers are all part of group AE2.
Consequently, group AE2 consists of only 24 second language learners (27 - 3). Table 124 shows the
results of the comparison of the groups analysis. Groups AE1 (N = 7), AE2 (N = 24) and the Dutch
control group (N = 15) are compared.
102
Table 124 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group AE1 vs. group AE2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Stop-het-Stop context
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group AE1
(N = 7)
Group AE2
(N = 24)
t-het-t
64.4 (SD = 40.8)
76.2 (SD = 16.3)
52.8 (SD = 35.3)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 2.621; p = .270
t-het-p/k
97.8 (SD = 8.6)
100 (SD = 0.0)
94.4 (SD = 12.7)
χ2 = 1.917; p = .382
k-het-p/t
93.3 (SD = 17.6)
100 (SD = 0.0)
91.7 (SD = 19.0)
χ2 = 1.300; p = .522
Table 124 shows no significant differences between the groups for performance on the stop-het-stop
contexts. This means that the groups have a similar perception of these contexts.
4.7.5.5.3 Group Results per Factor: Proficiency
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners are subdivided into two groups for
proficiency: groups P1 and P2. Group P1 are the second language learners with an average
proficiency level and group P2 are the second language learners with a high proficiency level. Table
125 shows the performance of the two groups on the stop-het-stop contexts.
Table 125 Group results for performance on the stop-het-stop contexts: group P1 and P2 (Mean in
percentages correct)
P1 (N = 14)
P2 (N = 20)
t-het-t
33.3 (SD = 37.0)
70.0 (SD = 23.9)
t-het-p/k
88.1 (SD = 16.6)
95.0 (SD = 16.3)
k-het-p/t
82.1 (SD = 31.7)
92.5 (SD = 24.5)
Stop-het-Stop Context
Group P1
Table 126 shows no significant differences within group P1 with respect to performance on the
stop-het-stop contexts.
Table 126 Results of group P1 (N = 14) for the stop-het-stop contexts
t-het-t
t-het-p/k
k-het-p/t
t-het-t
-
Z = -.284; p = .776
Z = -.158; p = .875
t-het-p/k
-
-
Z = -1.104; p = .270
k-het-p/t
-
-
-
Stop-het-Stop context
103
Group P2
Table 127 shows no significant differences within group P2 with respect to performance on the
stop-het-stop contexts.
Table 127 Results of group P2 (N = 20) for the stop-het-stop contexts
t-het-t
t-het-p/k
t-het-t
-
Z = -.227; p = .820
Z = -.189; p = .850
t-het-p/k
-
-
Z = .000; p = 1.000
k-het-p/t
-
-
-
Stop-het-Stop context
k-het-p/t
Comparison of the Groups
This section compares the performance of groups P1, P2 and the Dutch control group on the
stop-het-stop contexts. The results of only 31 second language learner participants (34 - 3) are used
for this analysis, as the 3 outliers are excluded. Two of the outliers are part of group P1 and one is part
of group P2. Consequently, group P1 consists of only 12 second language learners (14 - 2) and group
P2 of only 19 second language learners (20 - 1). Table 128 shows the results of the comparison of the
groups analysis. Groups P1 (N = 12), P2 (N = 19) and the Dutch control group (N = 15) are compared.
Table 128 Comparison of the groups: the Dutch control group vs. group P1 vs. group P2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test
Stop-het-Stop context
Dutch control
group (N = 15)
Group P1
(N =12)
Group P2
(N = 19)
t-het-t
64.4 (SD = 40.8)
38.9 (SD = 37.2)
70.2 (SD = 24.6)
Comparison of the
groups (df = 2)
χ2 = 5.415; p = .067
t-het-p/k
97.8 (SD = 8.6)
91.7 (SD = 15.1)
98.3 (SD = 7.6)
χ2 = 3.290; p = .193
k-het-p/t
93.3 (SD = 17.6)
87.5 (SD = 22.6)
97.4 (SD = 11.5)
χ2 = 2.473; p = .290
Table 128 shows no significant differences between the groups for performance on the stop-het-stop
contexts. This means that the groups have a similar perception of these contexts.
4.7.5.5.4 Summary
This section has investigated the influence of the stop-het-stop contexts on the perception of
het. The stop-het-stop contexts are the t-het-t contexts, the t-het-p/k contexts and the k-het-p/t
contexts. In addition, two factors have been controlled for: age of first exposure and proficiency.
The comparison of the groups analysis shows that there are no significant differences
between the Dutch control group and the second language learners for performance on the stop-hetstop contexts. Thus, the two groups appear to have a similar perception of these contexts. The mean
performance on the t-het-t contexts is very low for both of the groups, however. Within the Dutch
control group and the second language learner group, there is a significant difference between
104
performance on the -t-het-p/k and the -k-het-p/t contexts. Both groups perceive the t-het-p/k contexts
significantly better than the k-het-p/t contexts.
When the factor age of first exposure is controlled for, the comparison of the groups analysis
shows no significant differences in performance between the groups. The groups appear to have a
similar perception of the stop-het-stop contexts. Within group AE1, there are no significant differences
in performance with respect to performance on the stop-het-stop contexts. Within group AE2,
performance on the t-het-p/k and the k-het-p/t contexts is significantly different. Group AE2 perceives
the t-het-p/k contexts significantly better than the k-het-p/t contexts.
When the factor proficiency is controlled for, the comparison of the groups analysis shows no
significant differences in performance between the groups. Again, the groups appear to have a similar
perception of the stop-het-stop contexts. Within groups P1 and P2, there are no significant differences
in performance with respect to the stop-het-stop contexts.
4.7.6 Individual Results
This section analyses the individual results of the second language learners for performance
on het on the perception task. Table 20 shows that the Dutch control group has a mean score of
94.6% correct (SD = 5.3) for performance on het, and that the second language learner group has a
mean score of 83.7% correct (SD = 16.9) for performance on het. In order to subdivide the second
language learners into groups with respect to targetlike vs. non-targetlike, the mean score of the Dutch
control group has been taken as the cut-off point.
Table 129 shows the number and percentage of second language learners who are targetlike
for performance on het and the number and percentage who are non-targetlike.
Table 129 Targetlike vs. non-targetlike: the number and percentage of second language learners
(total N = 34) for performance on het.
Second language learners
Number (N)
Percentage (%)
Targetlike ( ≥ 94.6% correct)
8
23.5
Non-targetlike (< 94.6% correct)
26
76.5
Table 129 shows that the majority of the second language learners is non-targetlike for performance
on het: 76.5% of the second language learners is non-targetlike and only 23.5% is targetlike.
It is also possible to look at individual performance by controlling for the factors age of first
exposure and proficiency. Table 130 shows the number and percentage of second language learners
in each group (AE1, AE2, P1, P2) for performance on het.
105
Table 130 The number and percentage of second language learners for performance on het: groups
(AE1: N = 7; AE2: N = 27; P1: N = 14; P2: N = 20)
Group AE1
Group AE2
Group P1
Group P2
Second language learners
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Targetlike (≥ 94.6 % correct)
4
57.1
4
14.8
1
7.1
7
35.0
Non-targetlike (< 94.6% correct)
3
42.9
23
85.2
13
92.9
13
65.0
Table 130 shows that the factors age of first exposure and proficiency both have an effect on the
second language learners' performance on het. The individuals in group AE1 (the early acquirers)
perform better than the individuals in group AE2 (the late acquirers), and the individuals in group P2
(the second language learners with a high proficiency level) perform better than the individuals in
group P1 (the second language learners with an average proficiency level). The targetlike individuals
mainly appear to be in groups AE1 and P2. However, it should be held in mind that the difference in
number of subjects in groups AE1 and AE2 is considerable, and that this may affect the comparison.
4.7.7 General Summary
This section gives a general summary of the perception results. First the general group results
are summarised, then the group results per factor and finally the individual results.
Group Results
The results of the present study indicate that the second language learners have difficulties
with the perception of het. The Dutch control group perceives het significantly better than the second
language learners. The Dutch control group also perceives the determiners and the test as a whole
significantly better than the second language learners. In addition, the second language learners have
difficulties with the perception of dat; the Dutch control group perceives dat significantly better than the
second language learners. However, when the various factors are controlled for, it is revealed that the
second language learners' difficulties with dat are due to the performance of groups LE1 (the group
which has had medium exposure) and P1 (the group with an average proficiency level) only, whereas
most of the groups have difficulties with het. This indicates that the second language learners mainly
have difficulties with the perception of het. They perform at native level on de, deze, die, dit, the nonneuter demonstratives, the neuter demonstratives and the demonstratives taken together.
A comparison of performance within the groups shows no significant differences within the
Dutch control group and the second language learner group with respect to performance on de vs.
het, performance on the determiners vs. the demonstratives and performance on the non-neuter
demonstratives vs. the neuter demonstratives.
The misperception of het appears to be due to the following phonological contexts: fricativehet, het-stop (without t-het-t), het-vowel, het-/t/ (without t-het-t), stop-het-vowel and fricative-het-stop.
The Dutch controls perceive these contexts significantly better than the second language learners.
The fact that the difference between the groups is significant for performance on the het-stop contexts
106
and the het-/t/ contexts without the t-het-t contexts, and not significant for the het-stop contexts and
the het-/t/ contexts with the t-het-t contexts, indicates that it is not the t-het-t contexts which cause the
significant difference in perception but rather other het-stop and other het-/t/ contexts. An additional
analysis of performance on the stop-het-stop contexts shows that, for these contexts, there are no
significant differences in perception between the Dutch controls and the second language learners.
However, for both groups, performance on the t-het-t contexts is very low, which indicates that both
groups have serious difficulties in perceiving these contexts.
A comparison of performance within the groups shows that the Dutch control group perceives
the fricative-het contexts significantly better than the nasal-het contexts. Thus, the Dutch control group
appears to have difficulties with the nasal-het contexts. The Dutch control group also appears to have
difficulties with the fricative-het-stop contexts, as these contexts are perceived significantly worse than
the stop-het-vowel contexts, the nasal-het-stop contexts, the nasal-het-vowel contexts and the
fricative-het-vowel contexts. The analysis of performance on the stop-het-stop contexts shows that
both the Dutch control group and the second language learner group perceive the t-het-p/k contexts
significantly better than the k-het-p/t contexts. Thus, both the Dutch control group and the second
language learners appear to have difficulties with the k-het-p/t contexts.
Group Results per Factor
The results of the present study suggest that the factors age of first exposure and proficiency
have an effect on the second language learners' perception of het. Earlier acquisition and a higher
proficiency level appear to lead to a better perception of het. The factors length of exposure and
intensity of exposure do not seem to have an effect on the perception of het.
A comparison of performance within the groups shows no significant differences within groups
AE1, AE2, LE1, LE2, IE1, IE2 and P2 with respect to performance on de vs. het, performance on the
determiners vs. the demonstratives and performance on the non-neuter demonstratives vs. the neuter
demonstratives. Group P1 perceives the non-neuter demonstratives significantly better than the neuter
demonstratives, however.
When the factor age of first exposure is controlled for, the misperception of het appears to be
due to the following phonological contexts: fricative-het, het-stop (with and without t-het-t), het-vowel,
het-/t/ (without t-het-t), stop-het-vowel and fricative-het-stop. The Dutch control group perceives these
contexts significantly better than group AE2. The fact that the difference between group AE2 and the
Dutch control group for performance on the het-stop contexts remains significant when the t-het-t
contexts are excluded from the analysis indicates that there are also other het-stop contexts which
cause difficulties for group AE2. The fact that the difference between group AE2 and the Dutch control
group is significant for performance on the het-/t/ contexts without the t-het-t contexts and not for
performance on the het-/t/ contexts with the t-het-t contexts, indicates that it is not the t-het-t contexts
which cause the significant difference in perception but rather other het-/t/ contexts. The analysis of
performance on the stop-het-stop contexts shows no significant differences in perception between the
groups for these contexts. However, all of the groups have a very low performance on the t-het-t
contexts, which indicates that all groups have serious difficulties with these contexts.
107
The comparison of performance within the groups shows that there is a significant difference
in performance within group AE2. The analysis of performance on the stop-het-stop contexts shows
that group AE2 perceives the t-het-p/k contexts significantly better than the k-het-p/t contexts.
Consequently, group AE2 appears to have difficulties with the k-het-p/t contexts.
When the factor proficiency is controlled for, the misperception of het appears to be due to the
following phonological contexts: stop-het (with and without t-het-t), nasal-het, fricative-het, het-stop
(with and without t-het-t), het-vowel, het-/t/ (with and without t-het-t), stop-het-vowel, nasal-het-stop
and fricative-het-stop. The Dutch control group perceives these contexts significantly better than group
P1. The Dutch control group also perceives the fricative-het and fricative-het-stop contexts significantly
better than group P2. The fact that the differences between group P1 and the Dutch control group for
performance on the stop-het, het-stop and het-/t/ contexts remain significant when the t-het-t contexts
are excluded from the analysis, indicates that there are also other stop-het, het-stop and het-/t/
contexts which cause difficulties for group P1. The analysis of performance on the stop-het-stop
contexts shows that, for these contexts, there are no significant differences in perception between the
groups. However, for all groups, performance on the t-het-t contexts is very low, which suggests that
all groups have serious difficulties in perceiving these contexts.
The comparison of performance within the groups shows that there are significant differences
in performance within group P2. Group P2 perceives the nasal‫ـ‬het‫ـ‬vowel contexts significantly better
than the stop‫ـ‬het‫ـ‬vowel contexts, the nasal‫ـ‬het‫ـ‬vowel contexts significantly better than the
nasal‫ـ‬het‫ـ‬stop contexts and the nasal‫ـ‬het‫ـ‬vowel contexts significantly better than the fricative‫ـ‬het‫ـ‬vowel
contexts. Thus, group P2 especially appears to have difficulties with the stop-het-vowel contexts, the
nasal-het-stop contexts and the fricative-het-vowel contexts. The nasal-het-vowel contexts appear to
cause the least difficulties for group P2.
Individual Results
The individual analysis shows that the majority of the second language learners (76.5%) is
non-targetlike for performance on het. Only 23.5% of the second language learners is targetlike for
performance on het.
Like the previous analyses, the individual analysis suggests that the factors age of first
exposure and proficiency have an effect on the second language learners' performance on het.
Overall, the individuals in group AE1 (the early acquirers) perform better than those in group AE2 (the
late acquirers), and the individuals in group P2 (the learners with a high proficiency level) perform
better than those in group P1 (the learners with an average proficiency level). The analysis shows that
the targetlike individuals mainly appear to be in groups AE1 and P2. However, the difference in
number of subjects in groups AE1 and AE2 is considerable, which may affect the comparison.
108
5 The Production Task
5.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the production task. The production task is designed to obtain additional
production data from the second language learners who have participated in the perception
experiment. The production task tests whether the second language learners can correctly produce
gender.
In Chapter 3, it is hypothesised that the second language learners will show non-targetlike
behaviour in the production task. It is predicted that the second language learners will mainly
overgeneralise de, but that they may also use het for common nouns. In addition, it is predicted that
second language learners who have had lengthy and intensive exposure will overgeneralise to a
lesser extent than the learners who have had little exposure. Moreover, it is predicted that the second
language learners will produce the targetlike determiner more often for high frequency nouns than for
low frequency nouns.
This chapter is organised as follows. Section 5.2 outlines the participants, section 5.3 outlines
the experimental design, section 5.4 describes the method, and section 5.5 presents the results.
5.2 Participants
The subject group taking part in the production task was the same group of second language
learners (N = 34) which participated in the perception experiment. A difference, however, was that the
Dutch control group did not participate. This group could be expected to perform at native level and
the participation of the Dutch native speakers was therefore deemed unnecessary.
5.3 Experimental Design: Stimuli
The chosen task is a gap-filling exercise. The participants had to indicate whether 60 high-and
medium frequency nouns needed the determiner de or het. The stimuli for the production task have
been obtained from Dr. Laura Sabourin, who uses them in her PhD study on grammatical gender and
second language processing (Sabourin, 2003). The stimuli consist of Dutch de- and het-nouns of
medium and high frequency. Our research team has chosen 60 suitable nouns from Dr. Sabourin’s list
of nouns. Following Dr. Sabourin's advice, nouns which indicate humans (e.g. dokter, doctor; lerares,
teacher; mevrouw, lady) have been avoided as much as possible, since the second language learners
might have knowledge that these nouns usually have de. Half of the nouns are high frequency nouns,
and the other half of the nouns are medium frequency nouns. Likewise, half of the nouns are denouns, and the other half het-nouns. Table 131 shows that this results in 15 high-frequency de-nouns,
15 high-frequency het-nouns, 15 medium-frequency de-nouns and 15 medium-frequency het-nouns.
109
Table 131 Distribution of the nouns in the production task
De
Het
Total
High frequency
15
15
30
Medium frequency
15
15
30
Total
30
30
60
5.4 Procedure: Method
Trial order was randomised via the online Random Sequence Generator. In addition, two lists
were made, A being the reverse of B. This was done to prevent order effects.
Brief written instructions were included immediately before the production task. In these
instructions the participants were asked to write down de or het before every noun. The instructions
emphasised that the participants should give a spontaneous answer instead of thinking their answer
through. The participants were instructed to write down a question mark if they really did not know
whether a noun needs de or het. This was done to prevent guessing. If subjects did not know a noun
altogether, they could indicate this by writing down an ‘X’.
As mentioned in Chapter 4, section 4.2, the participants were given the production task after
the perception experiment had taken place. Right after they had finished the perception experiment,
the participants filled in the production task. Half of the participants received version A and the other
half received version B. The production task took the participants approximately 5 minutes. The time
spent depended on individual speed.
The production task is provided in Appendix 5 in the questionnaire under Lidwoordentest
(Determiner Test), section D.
5.5 Results
5.5.1 Introduction
Like the results of the perception experiment, the results of the production task are analysed
with SPSS, version 14.0. Again, the standard significance level of 0.05 (5%) is used.
As in the analysis of the perception results, the factors age of first exposure, proficiency,
length of exposure and intensity of exposure are controlled for when analysing performance on the
production task, and the same subdivision into groups is used. Again, the early acquirers are expected
to perform better than the late acquirers, the second language learners with a high proficiency level
are expected to perform better than the learners with an average proficiency level, and the learners
who have had lengthy and intensive exposure are expected to perform better than the learners who
have had medium and average exposure.
It was found that, for performance on de, de high frequency and de medium frequency, the
second language learners show an uneven distribution (Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk: p <
0.05). They also show an uneven distribution for performance on het high frequency and the total
110
performance on het (Shapiro-Wilk: p < 0.05). For these reasons, and because all of the groups consist
of less than 30 subjects when the various factors are controlled for, non-parametric tests are used to
compare (performance within) the group(s). The Wilcoxon signed-ranks test is used for comparisons
within groups and the Mann-Whitney test is used for comparisons between groups.
This section is organised as follows. Section 5.5.2 gives the general results, section 5.5.3
gives the results per factor, section 5.5.4 gives the individual results and section 5.5.5 gives a general
summary.
5.5.2 General Results
Tables 132 and 133 show the second language learners' performance on the production task.
Table 132 General production results (Mean in percentages correct)
De
Het
Total
High frequency
85.7 (SD = 15.8)
77.4 (SD = 18.4)
81.5 (SD = 14.3)
Medium frequency
81.8 (SD = 15.3)
51.8 (SD = 18.7)
66.8 (SD = 14.2)
Total
83.7 (SD = 14.2)
64.7 (SD = 16.0)
74.2 (SD = 12.9)
Table 133 Range of performance (Mean in percentages correct)
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Median
De
40
100
60
87
Het
30
100
70
65
High frequency
43
100
57
81.5
Medium frequency
43
93
50
63
De High frequency
47
100
53
93
De Medium frequency
33
100
67
87
Het High frequency
20
100
80
76.5
Het Medium frequency
20
100
80
53
Whole Test
50
97
47
75
Table 134 shows no significant differences within the second language learner group with
respect to performance on the production task.
Table 134 Production results of the second language learners (N = 34)
De vs. Het
Z = -.037; p = .970
High frequency vs. Medium frequency
Z = -.068; p = .945
De High frequency vs. De Medium frequency
Z = -.054; p = .957
Het High frequency vs. Het Medium frequency
Z = -.286; p = .775
High frequency: De vs. Het
Z = -.342; p = .732
Medium frequency: De vs. Het
Z = .000; p = 1.000
111
5.5.3 Results per Factor
This section analyses the group results per factor. It is organised as follows. Section 5.5.3.1
gives the results for the factor age of first exposure, section 5.5.3.2 gives the results for the factor
proficiency, section 5.5.3.3 gives the results for the factor length of exposure and section 5.5.3.4 gives
the results for the factor intensity of exposure. Section 5.5.3.5 gives the results of the correlation
between the factors and performance, and section 5.5.3.6 gives the results of the regression analysis.
5.5.3.1 Age of First Exposure
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners were subdivided into two groups for
age of first exposure: groups AE1 and AE2. Group AE1 are the early acquirers of Dutch (before 18
years of age; puberty learners) and group AE2 are the later acquirers (after 18 years of age; adult
learners). Tables 135 and 136 show the performance of the two groups.
Table 135 Results of group AE1 (Mean in percentages correct)
De
Het
Total
High frequency
91.4 (SD = 9.2)
84.9 (SD = 15.7)
88.0 (SD = 12.3)
Medium frequency
85.7 (SD = 16.0)
70.6 (SD = 21.5)
78.1 (SD = 16.4)
Total
88.4 (SD = 11.9)
77.7 (SD = 17.7)
83.1 (SD = 13.9)
Group AE1 (N = 7)
Table 136 Results of group AE2 (Mean in percentages correct)
De
Het
Total
High frequency
84.2 (SD = 16.9)
75.4 (SD = 18.8)
79.9 (SD = 14.5)
Medium frequency
80.8 (SD = 15.3)
46.9 (SD = 14.7)
63.9 (SD = 12.2)
Total
82.4 (SD = 14.6)
61.3 (SD = 13.9)
71.9 (SD = 11.9)
Group AE2 (N = 27)
Group AE1
Table 137 shows no significant differences within group AE1 with respect to performance on
the production task.
Table 137 Production results of group AE1 (N = 7)
De vs. Het
Z = -.210; p = .833
High frequency vs. Medium frequency
Z = .000; p = 1.000
De High frequency vs. De Medium frequency
Z = -.086; p = .931
Het High frequency vs. Het Medium frequency
Z = -.106; p = .915
High frequency: De vs. Het
Z = .000; p = 1.000
Medium frequency: De vs. Het
Z = .000; p = 1.000
112
Group AE2
Table 138 shows no significant differences within group AE2 with respect to performance on
the production task.
Table 138 Production results of group AE2 (N = 27)
De vs. Het
Z = -.241; p = .809
High frequency vs. Medium frequency
Z = -.012; p = .990
De High frequency vs. De Medium frequency
Z = -.229; p = .819
Het High frequency vs. Het Medium frequency
Z = -.129; p = .898
High frequency: De vs. Het
Z = -.289; p = .773
Medium frequency: De vs. Het
Z = .000; p = 1.000
Comparison of the Groups
Table 139 shows the comparison of the groups analysis. Groups AE1 (N = 7) and AE2 (N =
27) are compared.
Table 139 Comparison of the groups: group AE1 vs. group AE2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Mann-Whitney test
Significant differences are shaded
Group AE1
(N = 7)
Group AE2
(N = 27)
Group AE1 vs.
group AE2
De
88.4 (SD = 11.9)
82.4 (SD = 14.6)
Z = -1.330; p = .183
Het
77.7 (SD = 17.7)
61.3 (SD = 13.9)
Z = -2.246; p = .025
High frequency
88.0 (SD = 12.3)
79.9 (SD = 14.5)
Z = -1.136; p = .256
Medium frequency
78.1 (SD = 16.4)
63.9 (SD = 12.2)
Z = -2.467; p = .014
De High frequency
91.4 (SD = 9.2)
84.2 (SD = 16.9)
Z = -.851; p = .395
De Medium frequency
85.7 (SD = 16.0)
80.8 (SD = 15.3)
Z = -.975; p = .329
Het High frequency
84.9 (SD = 15.7)
75.4 (SD = 18.8)
Z = -1.182; p = .237
Het Medium frequency
70.6 (SD = 21.5)
46.9 (SD = 14.7)
Z = -2.581; p = .010
Whole Test
83.1 (SD = 13.9)
71.9 (SD = 11.9)
Z = -1.962; p = .050
Table 139 shows significant differences between groups AE1 and AE2 for performance on het, the
medium frequency nouns, the medium frequency het-nouns and the test as a whole. In all cases,
group AE1 performs significantly better than group AE2. Thus, age of first exposure seems to have an
effect on the second language learners' production of het, the medium frequency nouns, the medium
frequency het-nouns and the test as a whole. Earlier acquisition seems to lead to a better production
of het, the medium frequency nouns, the medium frequency het-nouns and the test as a whole.
Because group AE1 performs significantly better than group AE2 on the medium frequency
nouns and the medium frequency het-nouns, and because there are no differences between the
groups for performance on the high frequency nouns and the high frequency het-nouns, there seems
to be an effect of frequency here.
113
5.5.3.2 Proficiency
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners were subdivided into two groups for
proficiency: groups P1 and P2. Group P1 are the second language learners with an average
proficiency level and group P2 are the second language learners with a high proficiency level. Tables
140 and 141 show the performance of the two groups.
Table 140 Results of group P1 (Mean in percentages correct)
De
Het
Total
High frequency
79.1 (SD = 18.7)
68.4 (SD = 18.9)
73.7 (SD = 13.7)
Medium frequency
73.8 (SD = 15.5)
41.4 (SD = 11.2)
57.6 (SD = 9.9)
Total
76.4 (SD = 15.8)
55.1 (SD = 12.1)
65.8 (SD = 10.0)
Group P1 (N = 14)
Table 141 Results of group P2 (Mean in percentages correct)
De
Het
Total
High frequency
90.3 (SD = 11.8)
83.7 (SD = 15.5)
87.0 (SD = 12.3)
Medium frequency
87.4 (SD = 12.7)
59.1 (SD = 19.7)
73.3 (SD = 13.3)
Total
88.8 (SD = 10.6)
71.4 (SD = 15.1)
80.1 (SD = 11.6)
Group P2 (N = 20)
Group P1
Table 142 shows no significant differences within group P1 with respect to performance on
the production task.
Table 142 Production results of group P1 (N = 14)
De vs. Het
Z = -.472; p = .637
High frequency vs. Medium frequency
Z = .000; p = 1.000
De High frequency vs. De Medium frequency
Z = -.105; p = .916
Het High frequency vs. Het Medium frequency
Z = .000; p = 1.000
High frequency: De vs. Het
Z = -.251; p = .801
Medium frequency: De vs. Het
Z = -.189; p = .850
114
Group P2
Table 143 shows no significant differences within group P2 with respect to performance on the
production task.
Table 143 Production results of group P2 (N = 20)
De vs. Het
Z = -.371; p = .711
High frequency vs. Medium frequency
Z = -.393; p = .694
De High frequency vs. De Medium frequency
Z = -.300; p = .765
Het High frequency vs. Het Medium frequency
Z = -.019; p = .985
High frequency: De vs. Het
Z = .000; p = 1.000
Medium frequency: De vs. Het
Z = -.222; p = .825
Comparison of the Groups
Table 144 shows the comparison of the groups analysis. Groups P1 (N = 14) and P2 (N = 20)
are compared.
Table 144 Comparison of the groups: group P1 vs. group P2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Mann-Whitney test
Significant differences are shaded
Group P1
(N = 14)
Group P2
(N = 20)
Group P1 vs.
group P2
De
76.4 (SD = 15.8)
88.8 (SD = 10.6)
Z = -2.979; p = .003
Het
55.1 (SD = 12.1)
71.4 (SD = 15.1)
Z = -3.005; p = .003
High frequency
73.7 (SD = 13.7)
87.0 (SD = 12.3)
Z = -2.518; p = .012
Medium frequency
57.6 (SD = 9.9)
73.3 (SD = 13.3)
Z = -3.366; p = .001
De High frequency
79.1 (SD = 18.7)
90.3 (SD = 11.8)
Z = -1.917; p = .055
De Medium frequency
73.8 (SD = 15.5)
87.4 (SD = 12.7)
Z = -2.671; p = .008
Het High frequency
68.4 (SD = 18.9)
83.7 (SD = 15.5)
Z = -2.260; p = .024
Het Medium frequency
41.4 (SD = 11.2)
59.1 (SD = 19.7)
Z = -2.810; p = .005
Whole Test
65.8 (SD = 10.0)
80.1 (SD = 11.6)
Z = -3.277; p = .001
Table 144 shows significant differences between groups P1 and P2 for performance on all of the
comparisons except the high frequency de-nouns, although this is almost significant. In all cases,
group P2 performs significantly better than group P1.
115
5.5.3.3 Length of Exposure
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners were subdivided into two groups for
length of exposure: groups LE1 and LE2. Group LE1 are the learners who have had exposure to
Dutch for less than 12 years (medium exposure) and group LE2 are the learners who have had
exposure to Dutch for 12 years or more (lengthy exposure). Tables 145 and 146 below show the
performance of the two groups.
Table 145 Results of group LE1 (Mean in percentages correct)
De
Het
Total
High frequency
82.7 (SD = 16.6)
72.8 (SD = 21.3)
77.7 (SD = 16.1)
Medium frequency
80.0 (SD = 14.8)
46.2 (SD = 20.8)
63.1 (SD = 16.0)
Total
81.3 (SD = 14.1)
59.6 (SD = 18.4)
70.4 (SD = 14.6)
Group LE1 (N = 15)
Table 146 Results of group LE2 (Mean in percentages correct)
De
Het
Total
High frequency
88.0 (SD = 15.1)
81.0 (SD = 15.3)
84.5 (SD = 12.4)
Medium frequency
83.2 (SD = 16.0)
56.2 (SD = 16.0)
69.7 (SD = 12.2)
Total
85.6 (SD = 14.3)
68.6 (SD = 12.9)
77.1 (SD = 11.0)
Group LE2 (N = 19)
Group LE1
Table 147 shows no significant differences within group LE1 with respect to performance on
the production task.
Table 147 Production results of group LE1 (N = 15)
De vs. Het
Z = -.630; p = .529
High frequency vs. Medium frequency
Z = .000; p = 1.000
De High frequency vs. De Medium frequency
Z = -.283; p = .777
Het High frequency vs. Het Medium frequency
Z = -.031; p = .975
High frequency: De vs. Het
Z = -.456; p = .648
Medium frequency: De vs. Het
Z = -.089; p = .929
116
Group LE2
Table 148 shows no significant differences within group LE2 with respect to performance on
the production task.
Table 148 Production results of group LE2 (N = 19)
De vs. Het
Z = -.342; p = .732
High frequency vs. Medium frequency
Z = -.020; p = .984
De High frequency vs. De Medium frequency
Z = -.240; p = .811
Het High frequency vs. Het Medium frequency
Z = -.047; p = .962
High frequency: De vs. Het
Z = -.060; p = .952
Medium frequency: De vs. Het
Z = -.261; p = .794
Comparison of the Groups
Table 149 shows the comparison of the groups analysis. Groups LE1 (N = 15) and LE2 (N =
19) are compared.
Table 149 Comparison of the groups: group LE1 vs. group LE2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Mann-Whitney test
Group LE1
(N = 15)
Group LE2
(N = 19)
Group LE1 vs.
group LE2
De
81.3 (SD = 14.1)
85.6 (SD = 14.3)
Z = -1.101; p = .271
Het
59.6 (SD = 18.4)
68.6 (SD = 12.9)
Z = -1.881; p = .060
High frequency
77.7 (SD = 16.1)
84.5 (SD = 12.4)
Z = -1.291; p = .197
Medium frequency
63.1 (SD = 16.0)
69.7 (SD = 12.2)
Z = -1.275; p = .202
De High frequency
82.7 (SD = 16.6)
88.0 (SD = 15.1)
Z = -1.066; p = .287
De Medium frequency
80.0 (SD = 14.8)
83.2 (SD = 16.0)
Z = -.847; p = .397
Het High frequency
72.8 (SD = 21.3)
81.0 (SD = 15.3)
Z = -1.085; p = .278
Het Medium frequency
46.2 (SD = 20.8)
56.2 (SD = 16.0)
Z = -1.839; p = .066
Whole Test
70.4 (SD = 14.6)
77.1 (SD = 11.0)
Z = -1.528; p = .126
Table 149 shows no significant differences between groups LE1 and LE2 for performance on the
various test categories. However, the difference between the groups for performance on het and the
medium frequency het-nouns is approaching significance. Thus, there seems to be an effect of
frequency here. Overall, length of exposure does not seem to have an effect on the second language
learners' production of the various test categories.
117
5.5.3.4 Intensity of Exposure
General Results
As noted in section 4.7.2, the second language learners were subdivided into two groups for
intensity of exposure: groups IE1 and IE2. Group IE1 are the learners who have had average
exposure to Dutch and group IE2 are the learners who have had more than average or intensive
exposure to Dutch. Tables 150 and 151 show the performance of the two groups.
Table 150 Results of group IE1 (Mean in percentages correct)
De
Het
Total
High frequency
83.7 (SD = 18.5)
77.3 (SD = 15.5)
80.6 (SD = 13.1)
Medium frequency
77.4 (SD = 16.5)
45.9 (SD = 15.0)
61.7 (SD = 11.7)
Total
80.5 (SD = 16.0)
61.7 (SD = 12.5)
71.1 (SD = 11.3)
Group IE1 (N = 18)
Table 151 Results of group IE2 (Mean in percentages correct)
De
Het
Total
High frequency
87.9 (SD = 12.2)
77.5 (SD = 21.6)
82.6 (SD = 16.0)
Medium frequency
86.7 (SD = 12.6)
58.4 (SD = 20.6)
72.5 (SD = 14.9)
Total
87.3 (SD = 11.2)
68.0 (SD = 19.1)
77.6 (SD = 14.1)
Group IE2 (N = 16)
Group IE1
Table 152 shows no significant differences within group IE1 with respect to performance on
the production task.
Table 152 Production results of group IE1 (N = 18)
De vs. Het
Z = -.371; p = .711
High frequency vs. Medium frequency
Z = -.218; p = .827
De High frequency vs. De Medium frequency
Z = -.237; p = .813
Het High frequency vs. Het Medium frequency
Z = -.109; p = .913
High frequency: De vs. Het
Z = -.284; p = .777
Medium frequency: De vs. Het
Z = -.196; p = .844
118
Group IE2
Table 153 shows no significant differences within group IE2 with respect to performance on
the production task.
Table 153 Production results of group IE2 (N = 16)
De vs. Het
Z = -.028; p = .977
High frequency vs. Medium frequency
Z = -.513; p = .608
De High frequency vs. De Medium frequency
Z = .000; p = 1.000
Het High frequency vs. Het Medium frequency
Z = -.233; p = .816
High frequency: De vs. Het
Z = .000; p = 1.000
Medium frequency: De vs. Het
Z = .000; p =1.000
Comparison of the Groups
Table 154 shows the comparison of the groups analysis. Groups IE1 (N = 18) and IE2 (N =
16) are compared.
Table 154 Comparison of the groups: group IE1 vs. group IE2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Mann-Whitney test
Significant differences are shaded
Group IE1
(N = 18)
Group IE2
(N = 16)
Group IE1 vs.
group IE2
De
80.5 (SD = 16.0)
87.3 (SD = 11.2)
Z = -1.425; p = .154
Het
61.7 (SD = 12.5)
68.0 (SD = 19.1)
Z = -1.265; p = .206
High frequency
80.6 (SD = 13.1)
82.6 (SD = 16.0)
Z = -.590; p = .555
Medium frequency
61.7 (SD = 11.7)
72.5 (SD = 14.9)
Z = -2.050; p = .040
De High frequency
83.7 (SD = 18.5)
87.9 (SD = 12.2)
Z = -.194; p = .846
De Medium frequency
77.4 (SD = 16.5)
86.7 (SD = 12.6)
Z = -1.720; p = .085
Het High frequency
77.3 (SD = 15.5)
77.5 (SD = 21.6)
Z = -.366; p = .715
Het Medium frequency
45.9 (SD = 15.0)
58.4 (SD = 20.6)
Z = -1.742; p = .081
Whole test
71.1 (SD = 11.3)
77.6 (SD = 14.1)
Z = -1.244; p = .214
Table 154 shows that there is a significant difference between groups IE1 and IE2 for performance on
the medium frequency nouns only. Group IE2 performs significantly better on the medium frequency
nouns than group IE1. There are no significant differences between the groups for performance on the
other test categories. However, there does seem to be an effect of frequency here, since the
difference between the groups for performance on both the medium frequency de-nouns and the
medium frequency het-nouns shows a tendency towards significance.
119
5.5.3.5 Correlation Between the Factors and Performance
Table 155 shows the correlation between the factors and the second language learners'
production of the test categories. Table 156 shows the strength of the correlations.
Table 155 Correlation coëfficients for the factors and the second language learners' performance on
the production task
Significant correlations are shaded
Age of First
Exposure
Proficiency
Length of
Exposure
Intensity of
Exposure
De
r = -.274; p = .116
r = .661; p = .000
r = .182; p = .304
r = .171; p = .332
Het
r = -.598; p = .000
r = .399; p = .019
r = .431; p = .011
r = .174; p = .326
High frequency
r = -.406; p = .017
r = .502; p = .003
r = .403; p = .018
r = .071; p = .690
Medium frequency
r = -.536; p = .001
r = .614; p = .000
r = .264; p = .131
r = .282; p = .106
De High frequency
r = -.262; p = .134
r = .618; p = .000
r = .215; p = .223
r = .153; p = .389
De Medium frequency
r = -.240; p = .171
r = .592; p = .000
r = .107; p = .546
r = .157; p = .377
Het High frequency
r = -.417; p = .014
r = .254; p = .147
r = .439; p = .009
r = -.014; p = .936
Het Medium frequency
r = -.623; p = .000
r = .440; p = .009
r = .315; p = .070
r = .310; p = .075
Whole Test
r = -.519; p = .002
r = .608; p = .000
r = .366; p = .033
r = .201; p = .254
Proficiency
Length of
Exposure
Intensity of
Exposure
Table 156 Strength of the correlations
Age of First
Exposure
De
r² = -.075
r² = .436
r² = .033
r² = .029
Het
r² = -.357
r² = .159
r² = .185
r² = .030
High frequency
r² = -.164
r² = .252
r² = .162
r² = .005
Medium frequency
r² = -.287
r² = .376
r² = .069
r² = .079
De High frequency
r² = -.068
r² = .381
r² = .046
r² = .023
De Medium frequency
r² = -.057
r² = .350
r² = .011
r² = .024
Het High frequency
r² = -.173
r² = .064
r² = .192
r² = -.000
Het Medium frequency
r² = -.388
r² = .193
r² = .099
r² = .096
Whole Test
r² = -.269
r² = .369
r² = .133
r² = .040
Table 155 shows significant negative correlations between performance on het, the high frequency
nouns, the medium frequency nouns, the high frequency het-nouns, the medium frequency het-nouns
and the test as a whole and the factor age of first exposure. When age of first exposure increases,
performance on these test categories deteriorates, i.e. the later Dutch is learnt, the worse the test
categories are produced.
Table 155 reveals significant positive correlations between proficiency and the second
language learners' performance on most test categories. When proficiency increases, performance on
these test categories improves, i.e. the higher the proficiency level, the better the test categories are
produced.
Table 155 also reveals significant positive correlations between the second language learners'
performance on het, the high frequency nouns, the high frequency het-nouns and the test as a whole
and the factor length of exposure. When length of exposure increases, performance on these test
120
categories improves, i.e. the more exposure the second language learners have had, the better the
test categories are produced.
As Table 155 shows, there are no significant correlations between performance and the factor
intensity of exposure. This factor does not appear to have an effect on performance on the task.
5.5.3.6 Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis can reveal which factor best predicts the second language
learners' production of de, het, etc. Table 157 shows the results of the regression analysis (method:
Enter).
Table 157 Regression coëfficients for the factors and the second language learners' performance on
the production task (standardised coëfficient Beta); Significant coëfficients are shaded
Age of First
Exposure
Proficiency
Length of
Exposure
Intensity of
Exposure
De
β = -.116; p = .459
β = .691; p = .000
β = -.091; p = .557
β = -.108; p = .502
Het
β = -.506; p = .002
β = .164; p = .306
β = .262; p = .093
β = -.044; p = .779
High frequency
β = -.298; p = .081
β = .392; p = .028
β = .190; p = .254
β = -.151; p = .378
Medium frequency
β = -.386; p = .014
β = .498; p = .003
β = .008; p = .959
β = -.025; p = .871
De High frequency
β = -.108; p = .514
β = .628; p = .001
β = -.034; p = .837
β = -.097; p = .565
De Medium frequency
β = -.110; p = .512
β = .645; p = .001
β = -.148; p = .374
β = -.111; p = .520
Het High frequency
β = -.382; p = .035
β = .074; p = .680
β = .317; p = .075
β = -.151; p = .400
Het Medium frequency
β = -.502; p = .003
β = .212; p = .188
β = .140; p = .362
β = .066; p = .677
Whole Test
β = -.376; p = .016
β = .479; p = .004
β = .112; p = .448
β = -.086; p = .570
Table 157 shows that the factors age of first exposure and proficiency appear to be the best predictors
of performance on the test categories. Age of first exposure best predicts performance on het, the high
frequency het-nouns and the medium frequency het-nouns. Proficiency best predicts performance on
de, the high frequency nouns, the high frequency de-nouns and the medium frequency de-nouns. Both
age of first exposure and proficiency predict performance on the medium frequency nouns and the test
as a whole. When compared to the factors age of first exposure and proficiency, the factors length of
exposure and intensity of exposure do not have a substantial effect.
121
5.5.4 Individual Results
As Table 132 shows, the second language learners have a mean score of 83.7% correct for
performance on de, and a mean score of only 64.7% correct for performance on het. No significant
differences have been found between the second language learners' performance on de and het
(Table 134). However, the mean performance does show that the second language learners produce
de better than het. The results also suggest that the second language learners overgeneralise de, and
that they use het with common nouns. An analysis of the individual results can shed more light on
these issues.
The 34 second language learners can be categorised according to their response patterns for
performance on the production task. The results are given in Table 158. A tick ( ۷ ) indicates that 20%
or more of the nouns of a given category are produced with the respective determiner (cf. Unsworth, in
press: 18-21). The cut-off point of 20% is arbitrary.
Table 158 Individual response patterns for performance on the production task
Target is shaded
L2 learners
Common
Pattern
N
%
De
1
6
17.6
۷
2
18
52.9
۷
3
10
29.4
۷
Neuter
Het
De
Het
۷
۷
۷
۷
۷
۷
Table 158 shows that three different response patterns are found in the data. In the targetlike pattern
1, de is consistently used with common nouns and het is consistently used with neuter nouns. In this
pattern, de is not produced with neuter nouns (i.e. de is not produced with neuter nouns at a rate
higher than 20%) and het is not produced with common nouns (i.e. het is not produced with common
nouns at a rate higher than 20%). In pattern 2, de is consistently used with common nouns and both
de and het are used with neuter nouns. In pattern 3, de and het are used with both types of nouns.
Response pattern 1 is the targetlike pattern, but only 17.6% of the second language learners
shows this pattern. Pattern 2, which is the most frequent pattern, shows that more than half of the
second language learners (52.9%; 18/34) also uses de with neuter nouns. The second most frequent
pattern is pattern 3, which shows that almost one third of the second language learners (29.4%; 10/34)
not only uses de with neuter nouns, but also het with common nouns. Pattern 3 could indicate random
behaviour (using de and het with all or most nouns). Patterns 2 and 3 together show that as many as
82.4% of the second language learners (18+10 = 28; 28/34) use de with more than 20% of the neuter
nouns. This points to a default strategy.
122
5.5.5 General Summary
This section gives a general summary of the production results. First the general results are
summarised, then the results per factor and finally the individual results.
General Results
No significant differences have been found within the second language learner group for
performance on de vs. het, the high frequency nouns vs. the medium frequency nouns, the high
frequency de-nouns vs. the medium frequency de-nouns, the high frequency het-nouns vs. the
medium frequency het-nouns, the high frequency de-nouns vs. the high frequency het-nouns and the
medium frequency de-nouns vs. the medium frequency het-nouns.
Results per Factor
Various factors interacting with the second language learners' performance on the production
task have been controlled for. These factors are age of first exposure, proficiency, length of exposure
and intensity of exposure.
The factor age of first exposure appears to have an effect on performance on the test. There
are significant differences between groups AE1 and AE2, and earlier acquisition seems to lead to a
better production of the medium frequency nouns, the medium frequency het-nouns and the test as a
whole. Moreover, significant negative correlations have been found between age of first exposure and
the second language learners' performance on het, the high frequency nouns, the medium frequency
nouns, the high frequency het-nouns, the medium frequency het-nouns and the test as a whole. When
age of first exposure increases, performance on these test categories deteriorates, i.e. the later Dutch
is learnt, the worse these test categories are produced. There also seems to be an effect of frequency
here, because group AE1 performs significantly better on the medium frequency nouns and the
medium frequency het-nouns than group AE2, and because there are no differences between the
groups for performance on the high frequency nouns and the high frequency het-nouns.
Proficiency also appears to have an effect on performance. There are significant differences
between groups P1 and P2, and a higher proficiency level seems to lead to a better production of de,
het, the high frequency nouns, the medium frequency nouns, the medium frequency de-nouns, the
high frequency het-nouns, the medium frequency het-nouns and the test as a whole. Moreover,
significant positive correlations have been found between proficiency and the second language
learners' performance on de, het, the high frequency nouns, the medium frequency nouns, the high
frequency de-nouns, the medium frequency de-nouns, the medium frequency het-nouns and the test
as a whole. When proficiency increases, performance on these test categories improves, i.e. the
higher the proficiency level, the better these test categories are produced.
There are no significant differences between groups LE1 and LE2, but significant positive
correlations have been found between length of exposure and the second language learners'
performance on het, the high frequency nouns, the high frequency het-nouns and the test as a whole.
When length of exposure increases, performance on these test categories improves, i.e. the more
123
exposure the second language learners have had, the better these test categories are produced.
Thus, length of exposure appears to have an effect on performance. There also seems to be an effect
of frequency here, because the difference between groups LE1 and LE2 for performance on het and
the medium frequency het-nouns is approaching significance, with group LE2 performing better than
group LE1.
There is a significant difference between groups IEI and IE2 for performance on the medium
frequency nouns. Group IE2 produces the medium frequency nouns significantly better than group
IE1. No significant correlations have been found between intensity of exposure and performance,
however. Consequently, intensity of exposure does not appear to have a substantial effect on
performance. There does appear to be an effect of frequency here, because group IE2 produces the
medium frequency nouns significantly better than group IE1 and because the difference between the
groups for performance on both the medium frequency de-nouns and the medium frequency hetnouns shows a tendency towards significance, group IE2 performing better than group IEI.
A multiple regression analysis suggests that the factors age of first exposure and proficiency
are the best predictors of performance on the various test categories. Age of first exposure best
predicts performance on het, the high frequency het-nouns and the medium frequency het-nouns.
Proficiency best predicts performance on de, the high frequency nouns, the high frequency de-nouns
and the medium frequency de-nouns. Both age of first exposure and proficiency best predict
performance on the medium frequency nouns and the test as a whole. When compared to the factors
age of first exposure and proficiency, the factors length of exposure and intensity of exposure do not
have a substantial effect.
Individual Results
An analysis of the individual results reveals three different response patterns in the data. The
targetlike pattern 1 (de is consistently used with common nouns and het is consistently used with
neuter nouns) is only witnessed in 17.6% of the second language learners. The most frequent pattern
is pattern 2. In pattern 2 de is used with common nouns and both de and het are used with neuter
nouns. Pattern 2 is witnessed in 52.9% of the second language learners. The second most frequent
pattern is pattern 3. In pattern 3 de and het are used with both types of nouns. Pattern 3 is witnessed
in 29.4% of the second language learners.
The results show that only 17.6% of the second language learners is targetlike, that as many
as 82.4% of the second language learners (patterns 2 and 3 together) use de with neuter nouns, and
that 29.4% of the second language learners also use het with common nouns. Due to the frequent use
of de with neuter nouns, these results point to a default strategy.
124
6 Perception and Production
Introduction
The previous chapters have analysed the second language learners' performance on the
perception experiment (Chapter 4) and the production task (Chapter 5). Chapter 4 has shown that the
second language learners have difficulties with the perception of het, but not with the perception of de.
Chapter 5 has shown that the learners have difficulties with the production of both de and het.
As Llisterri (1995) and Rochet (1995) point out, both perception and production are important
in the process of second language acquisition, but the relationship between the perception and
production of second language speech sounds is still rather unclear. The question in this thesis, is
whether a better perception of het leads to a better production of het, or whether a better production of
het leads to a better perception of het. In order to investigate this, the results of the perception
experiment and the production task can be combined. Because the focus in this thesis is on the
perception of het, and because the second language learners in this study mainly show difficulties with
the perception of het, only the results of performance on het will be used (perception and production).
The results of all 34 second language learner participants are used for the current analyses,
because the comparisons are made within the group of second language learners. Therefore, the 3
outliers need not be excluded from the analyses. The results of the Dutch control group cannot be
compared to those of the second language learners here, because the Dutch control group has not
participated in the production task.
Does Good Perception Lead To Good Production?
According to the saliency hypothesis as posed in this thesis, a misperception of het should
lead to production difficulties. Conversely, a good perception of het should lead to a good production
of het. This section investigates whether those participants who have a better perception of het also
show a better production of het.
Table 20 shows that the second language learners have a mean score of 83.7% correct for
performance on het (perception). The second language learners are subdivided into two groups with
respect to their performance on het on the perception task: a group which shows a low to average
performance and a group which shows a higher than average performance. The total mean
performance (83.7% correct) serves as the cut-off point. This has resulted in the subdivision as shown
in Table 159.
Table 159 Subdivision into groups for performance on het (perception; Mean in percentages correct)
Group
N
Mean
Std.Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Range
PercHet1
11
64.8
17.9
26.0
81.0
55.0
PercHet2
23
92.7
4.7
85.0
100
15.0
125
The groups shown in Table 159 can be used to compare performance on the production task.
Tables 160 and 161 show the performance of groups PercHet1 and PercHet2 on the production task.
Table 160 The performance of group PercHet1 on the production task (Mean in percentages correct)
Group PercHet1 (N = 11)
De
Het
Total
High frequency
81.3 (SD = 19.2)
66.6 (SD = 20.6)
73.9 (SD = 17.0)
Medium frequency
75.8 (SD = 17.8)
45.5 (SD = 12.5)
60.6 (SD = 9.9)
Total
78.6 (SD = 17.6)
56.1 (SD = 12.5)
67.3 (SD = 11.8)
Table 161 The performance of group PercHet2 on the production task (Mean in percentages correct)
Group PercHet2 (N = 23)
De
Het
Total
High frequency
87.8 (SD = 13.8)
82.6 (SD = 15.0)
85.2 (SD = 11.6)
Medium frequency
84.7 (SD = 13.4)
54.8 (SD = 20.6)
69.8 (SD = 15.1)
Total
86.1 (SD = 11.8)
68.7 (SD = 16.1)
77.4 (SD = 12.4)
Table 162 shows the results of the comparison of the groups analysis. Groups PercHet1 and
PercHet2 are compared by means of a Mann-Whitney test.
Table 162 Comparison of the groups for performance on the production task
Group PercHet1 vs. group PercHet2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Mann Whitney test
Significant differences are shaded
Group PercHet2
(N = 33)
86.1 (SD = 11.8)
Group PercHet1 vs.
Group PercHet2
De
Group PercHet1
(N = 11)
78.6 (SD = 17.6)
Het
56.1 (SD = 12.5)
68.7 (SD = 16.1)
Z = -2.089; p = .037
High frequency
73.9 (SD = 17.0)
85.2 (SD = 11.6)
Z = -1.797; p = .072
Medium frequency
60.6 (SD = 9.9)
69.8 (SD = 15.1)
Z = -1.706; p = .088
De High frequency
81.3 (SD = 19.2)
87.8 (SD = 13.8)
Z = -.886; p = .376
Z = -1.465; p = .143
De Medium frequency
75.8 (SD = 17.8)
84.7 (SD = 13.4)
Z = -1.480; p = .139
Het High frequency
66.6 (SD = 20.6)
82.6 (SD = 15.0)
Z = -2.247; p = .025
Het Medium frequency
45.5 (SD = 12.5)
54.8 (SD = 20.6)
Z = -1.264; p = .206
Whole Test
67.3 (SD = 11.8)
77.4 (SD = 12.4)
Z = -2.065; p = .039
Table 162 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on het, the high
frequency het-nouns and the test as a whole. Group PercHet2 produces these test categories
significantly better than group PercHet1. Group PercHet2 is the group with a higher perception score,
and thus, it seems that a better perception of het may indeed contribute to a better production of het.
There is no significant difference between the two groups for performance on the medium
frequency het-nouns. The reason for this is probably the fact that both groups have a very low
performance on these nouns.
126
An additional correlation analysis shows that the second language learners' performance on
het (perception) significantly correlates with performance on het (production). Table 163 shows the
result of the correlation analysis.
Table 163 Correlation: performance on het (perception) vs. performance on het (production)
The second language learners (N = 34)
Significant correlations are shaded
Het perception vs. Het production
r = .362; p = .035
Table 163 shows a significant positive correlation between performance on het (perception) and
performance on het (production). When performance on het (perception) improves, performance on
het (production) improves, i.e. a better perception appears to contribute to a better production of het.
However, the reverse is also true: When performance on het (production) improves, performance on
het (perception) improves, i.e. a better production appears to contribute to a better perception of het.
The correlation is rather weak, however, as it explains only 13.1% of the variance (r² = .131).
Does Good Production Lead To Good Perception?
In the previous section it was found that a better perception of het may further a better
production of het. Possibly, a better production of het (i.e. a better knowledge of het) may also lead to
a better perception of het. It is possible that second language learners of Dutch first need to have
knowledge about gender before they can perceive het in everyday speech. This section investigates
whether those participants who show a better production of het also have a better perception of het.
Table 132 shows that the second language learners have a mean score of 64.7% correct for
performance on het (production). The second language learners are subdivided into two groups with
respect to their performance on het on the production task: a group which shows a low to average
performance and a group which shows a higher than average performance. The total mean
performance (64.7% correct) serves as the cut-off point. This has resulted in the subdivision shown in
Table 164.
Table 164 Subdivision into groups for performance on het (production; Mean in percentages correct)
Group
N
Mean
Std.Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
Range
ProdHet1
17
52.4
9.7
30
63
33
ProdHet2
17
76.9
10.6
67
100
33
The groups shown in Table 164 can be used to compare performance on the perception task.
Table 165 shows the performance of groups ProdHet1 and ProdHet2 on the perception task. Table
165 also shows the results of the comparison of the groups analysis. Groups ProdHet1 and ProdHet2
are compared by means of a Mann-Whitney test.
127
Table 165 Comparison of the groups for performance on the perception task
Group ProdHet1 vs. group ProdHet2
Mean in percentages correct for each group and outcome of the Mann Whitney test
Significant differences are shaded
Group ProdHet1
(N = 17)
Group ProdHet2
(N = 17)
Group ProdHet1 vs.
Group ProdHet2
De
95.1 (SD = 8.6)
99.6 (SD = 1.7)
Z = -3.318; p = .001
Het
76.9 (SD = 19.0)
90.4 (SD = 11.5)
Z = -2.904; p = .004
All Determiners
86.1 (SD = 12.0)
94.9 (SD = 6.5)
Z = -3.406; p = .001
Non-neuter demonstratives
96.5 (SD = 13.3)
100 (SD = 0.0)
Z = -1.435; p = .151
Neuter demonstratives
93.7 (SD = 11.8)
99.2 (SD = 2.1)
Z = -2.491; p = .013
All Demonstratives
95.0 (SD = 12.0)
99.5 (SD = 1.1)
Z = -2.463; p = .014
Whole Test (all test items)
90.6 (SD = 11.6)
97.3 (SD = 3.5)
Z = -3.475; p = .001
Table 165 shows significant differences between the groups for performance on all test categories
except the non-neuter demonstratives. Group ProdHet2 perceives these categories significantly better
than group ProdHet1. Group ProdHet2 is the group with a higher production score, and thus, it seems
that a better production of het may indeed contribute to a better perception of het. Surprisingly, a
better production of het also appears to contribute to a better perception of de, the determiners taken
together, the neuter demonstratives, the demonstratives taken together and the test as a whole.
As mentioned earlier, the results of the correlation analysis as given in Table 163 also suggest
that a better production of het may lead to a better perception of het, i.e. that when performance on
het (production) improves, performance on het (perception) improves.
Summary
When the perception and production results are combined, the comparison of the groups
analysis suggests that a better perception of het may contribute to a better production of het. The
results also suggest that a better production of het may contribute to a better perception of het. These
findings are confirmed by an additional correlation analysis. Thus, the results suggest that a good
perception of het may indeed further a good production of het and vice versa. Surprisingly, a better
production of het also appears to contribute to a better perception of de and the demonstratives.
128
7 General Discussion
7.1 Perception
This section discusses the results of the perception experiment in terms of the two main
research questions as posed in Chapter 3. It discusses whether the predictions based on research
questions 1 and 3 are borne out.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked whether second language learners of Dutch can perceive
the difference between het and de in the experiment or whether they fail to perceive het. It was asked
whether the performance of the second language learners significantly differs from that of the Dutch
native speaker control group, and whether phonological context has an influence on perception. As in
natural speech, het systematically features as a non-salient form in the perception experiment as a
result of its phonological context, while de mostly features as a salient form. For these reasons (and
because de is the default and de is used for all plural nouns in Dutch), it was hypothesised that the
second language learners should systematically fail to perceive het, perceiving de instead and thereby
in a sense 'overgeneralising' de in perception. It was hypothesised that the Dutch control group should
perceive het significantly better than the second language learners. It was also hypothesised that both
the second language learners and the Dutch native speakers should perceive de significantly better
than het. With respect to the influence of phonological context, the following hierarchy of difficulty was
hypothesised: het should be more difficult to perceive when followed by consonants than when
followed by vowels, and more difficult to perceive when followed by /t/ than when followed by other
consonants. Both the second language learners and the Dutch control group should especially have
difficulties with the t-het-t contexts.
The results of the present study indicate that the second language learners have difficulties
with the perception of het. The Dutch control group perceives het significantly better than the group of
second language learners. This means that the second language learners regularly fail to perceive
het, perceiving de instead and thereby 'overgeneralising' de in perception. Thus, in this respect, the
prediction is borne out.
There are no significant differences between the perception of de and het within the second
language learner group and the Dutch control group. When the various factors are controlled for, there
are also no significant differences between the perception of de and het within groups AE1, AE2, LE1,
LE2, IE1, IE2, P1 and P2. Thus, the prediction that the second language learners and the Dutch
control group should perceive de significantly better than het is not borne out.
The influence of phonological context has been investigated extensively. The results of the
present study indicate that the second language learners' misperception of het is due to the following
phonological contexts: fricative-het, het-stop (without t-het-t), het-vowel, het-/t/ (without t-het-t), stophet-vowel and fricative-het-stop. The Dutch control group perceives these contexts significantly better
129
than the second language learners. The analysis of the influence of phonological context indicates that
the predictions made in this respect are not entirely borne out. A clear pattern which shows that the
second language learners find het more difficult to perceive when het is followed by consonants than
when followed by vowels, and more difficult to perceive when followed by /t/ than when followed by
other consonants (the hypothesised hierarchy of difficulty) has not been found.
Indeed, the second language learners perceive the het-/t/ contexts (without t-het-t) significantly
worse than the Dutch control group, but they perform at native level on the het-/p/k/ contexts. This
indicates that the second language learners find het more difficult to perceive in contexts in which het
is followed by /t/ (the het-/t/ contexts) than in contexts in which het is followed by another consonant
(the het-/p/k/ contexts). Thus, in this respect, the prediction is borne out.
The analysis of performance on the stop-het-stop contexts shows no significant differences in
performance between the Dutch control group and the second language learners. However, the mean
performance on the t-het-t contexts is very low for both of the groups (mean 64.4% correct, SD = 40.8
and mean 54.9% correct, SD = 34.7 respectively, see Table 139). The reason why no significant
difference is found between the groups is probably that both groups have a very low performance on
these contexts, and not just one of the groups. Thus, both groups appear to have serious difficulties
with the t-het-t contexts. This is in line with the prediction that especially the t-het-t contexts should be
difficult for both the Dutch control group and the second language learners. Thus, although the results
are not statistically corroborated, this prediction, too, appears to be borne out.
The second language learners also perceive the het-stop contexts (without t-het-t) and the
fricative-het-stop contexts significantly worse than the Dutch control group. This indicates that the
second language learners find het followed by consonants more difficult than the Dutch control group.
However, the second language learners also perceive the het-vowel contexts and the stop-het-vowel
contexts significantly worse than the Dutch control group. The finding that the second language
learners have difficulties with het in contexts in which a vowel occurs after het was not predicted.
Rather, it was hypothesised that this would not be the case. Because /t/-deletion is improbable before
vowels, the phonological contrast between [də] and [ət] should be maximally clear in this case. The
reason why this does not appear to be so in the present study is unclear. It is possible that the second
language learners perceive the /t/ of [ət] as the onset of the nonce noun that follows. This would
weaken the phonological contrast between [də] and [ət]. However, section 4.4.5 illustrates how a
glottal stop should be inserted immediately before nonce nouns with an initial vowel in the present
study. Section 4.4.5 describes the phonology of the contexts of the demonstratives, but in the contexts
of the determiners the glottal stop should be inserted in the same way. A glottal stop should be
inserted between the final /t/ of [ət] and the onset of the nonce noun. As noted in section 2.5.3, the
glottal stop is not a separate phoneme in Dutch, but it is inserted before vowel-initial syllables within
words after /a/ and /ə/ and often also at the beginning of a word (Jongenburger & van Heuven, 1991).
A glottal stop between [ət] and the following nonce noun would maintain the phonological contrast
between [ət] and [də]. It is possible, however, that the speaker in the experiment (Dr. Quené), does not
use a glottal stop before nonce nouns with initial vowel. Therefore, future research on the perception
of het will have to pay specific attention to contexts in which het is followed by nonce nouns with initial
130
vowel. If future studies propose a similar hierarchy of difficulty as the present study, they will have to
make sure that a glottal stop occurs before nonce nouns with initial vowel.
It is also striking that the second language learners only have difficulties with the stop-hetvowel contexts, and not with the nasal-het-vowel contexts and the fricative-het-vowel contexts as well.
Apparently, het is easier to perceive in the nasal-het-vowel and the fricative-het-vowel contexts than in
the stop-het-vowel contexts. Thus, especially a stop before het seems to cause difficulties with respect
to the het-vowel contexts. Although /t/-deletion is improbable before vowels, it is possible that stops
before het do cause /t/-deletion in het in the stop-het-vowel contexts, and that this is not (or to a lesser
extent) the case for nasals and fricatives before het in the het-vowel contexts. T-deletion would
weaken the phonological contrast between [də] and [ət] in the stop-het-vowel contexts. Future
research will have to shed more light on the perception of het in stop-het-vowel contexts. If future
studies propose a similar hierarchy of difficulty as the present study, they will have to make sure that
het does not undergo /t/-deletion in stop-het-vowel contexts.
Although the finding that the second language learners have difficulties with het in contexts in
which a vowel occurs after het has not been predicted, this is not strange. Like all other contexts of het
in the present study, the het-vowel and stop-het-vowel contexts also render het non-salient. Het does
not occur in its full form but is reduced to [ət] in these contexts. It was not predicted that these contexts
should be easy to perceive, but rather that they should be easier to perceive when compared to the
other contexts of het. Moreover, as mentioned previously, it is possible that the second language
learners perceive the /t/ of [ət] as the onset of the following nonce noun, or that /t/-deletion does occur
in these contexts. Overall, however, the prediction that the second language learners should find het
more difficult to perceive when het is followed by consonants than when followed by vowels does not
appear to be borne out.
Another unpredicted result is the finding that the second language learners have difficulties
with the fricative-het contexts, i.e. the finding that the context before het also plays a role in the
misperception of het. Because the second language learners have difficulties with the fricative-hetstop contexts, and not with the fricative-het-vowel contexts, especially a stop after het seems to cause
difficulties with respect to the fricative-het contexts. This is also supported by the fact that the second
language learners perceive the het-stop contexts (without t-het-t) significantly worse than the Dutch
control group. A brief analysis of performance on the individual fricative-het-stop contexts reveals that
the second language learners especially have difficulties with the context g-het-tiemp. The second
language learners have a mean score of only 53% correct (SD = 50.7) for this context, while their
mean scores for the other fricative-het-stop contexts are all 85% correct. Thus, the difficulties with the
fricative-het and fricative-het-stop contexts especially appear to be due to the context g-het-tiemp.
Apparently, the second language learners find it impossible to make out whether they hear de or het in
this context. The difficulties with the context g-het-tiemp may also explain why the second language
learners have difficulties with the fricative-het-stop contexts but not with the nasal-het-stop contexts
and the stop-het-stop contexts, and why they have difficulties with the fricative-het contexts, but not
with the stop-het and nasal-het contexts. The analysis of performance within the groups shows that
the Dutch control group also has difficulties with the fricative-het-stop contexts. These difficulties also
131
seem to be due to the context g-het-tiemp. The Dutch controls have a mean score of 93% correct (SD
= 25.8) for g-het-tiemp, while they score 100% correct on the other fricative-het-stop contexts.
Finally, the analysis of performance on the stop-het-stop contexts shows that both the second
language learners and the Dutch control group perceive the t-het-p/k contexts significantly better than
the k-het-p/t contexts, i.e. the k-het-p/t contexts are perceived significantly worse than the t-het-p/k
contexts. This indicates that both the Dutch control group and the second language learners have
difficulties with the k-het-p/t contexts. Apparently, the combination k-het-p/t renders het more difficult to
perceive than the combination t-het-p/k.
The results of the present study indicate that the second language learners do not only have
difficulties with het, but with dat as well. The Dutch control group perceives dat significantly better than
the second language learners. This was not predicted. When the various factors are controlled for,
however, it becomes clear that the second language learners' difficulties with dat are due to the
performance of groups LE1 (the group which has had medium exposure) and P1 (the group with an
average proficiency level) only, whereas most of the groups have difficulties with het. This means that
the second language learners mainly have difficulties with het. Because groups LE2 and P2 do not
have difficulties with dat, it appears that lengthier exposure and a higher proficiency level may lead to
a better perception of dat, i.e. the misperception of dat may correspond to a lack of exposure and a
lower proficiency level. Because the second language learners do not have difficulties with de, deze,
die and dit, and because only groups LE1 and P1 have problems with dat, the second language
learners do not show signs of having a general problem with Dutch gender. The second language
learners rather show signs of having a problem with het specifically.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked whether there is evidence for an effect of length and
intensity of exposure in the second language learners' perception of het, i.e. whether second language
learners who have had lengthy and intensive exposure to Dutch perceive het better than second
language learners who have had little exposure. It was hypothesised and predicted that this should be
the case.
The results of the present study indicate that the factors length of exposure and intensity of
exposure do not have an effect on the second language learners' perception of het. There are only
differences between the short vs. long exposure groups for performance on dat and the test as a
whole (without t-het-t). There are no differences between the medium vs. intensive exposure groups.
In addition, no significant correlations have been found between length and intensity of exposure and
performance. Thus, the predictions based on research question 3 are not borne out.
It is surprising that length and intensity of exposure do not have an effect on the second
language learners' perception of het. Second language learners who have had lengthy and intensive
exposure should perceive het better than second language learners who have had little exposure,
because they have gained more phonological knowledge about the reduction-and assimilation
132
processes which affect het in fast, informal speech. Some quick calculations reveal that 73.7% of the
second language learners who have had lengthy exposure are late acquirers while 26.3% of them are
early acquirers, that 31.6% of them have an average proficiency level while 68.4% of them have a high
proficiency level, and that 52.6% of them do not use Dutch intensively while 47.4% of them do use
Dutch intensively. These results suggest that age of first exposure may have an effect on the
(mis)perception of het. It is possible that the second language learners who have had lengthy
exposure do not perform better than those who have had little exposure because so many of them are
late acquirers. Moreover, more than 50% of them do not use Dutch intensively. Similar calculations
reveal that 62.5% of the second language learners who have had intensive exposure are late
acquirers while 37.5% of them are early acquirers, that 25% of them have an average proficiency level
while 75% of them have a high proficiency level, and that 43.8% of them have not had lengthy
exposure while 56.3% of them have had lengthy exposure. In this case, too, age of first exposure may
have an effect. Possibly, the second language learners who have had intensive exposure do not
perform better than those who have had little exposure because so many of them are late acquirers.
However, it should be observed that only the factor proficiency has been found to correlate with
performance on het, and that the influence of the factors age of first exposure and intensity of
exposure is not statistically corroborated. As a consequence, it is not possible to draw conclusions for
the second language learner group as a whole as to why length of exposure and intensity of exposure
do not have an effect on performance.
7.2 Production
This section discusses the results of the production task in terms of research question 2 as
posed in Chapter 3. It discusses whether the predictions based on research question 2 are borne out.
The second research question asked whether the second language learners of Dutch can
produce de and het correctly. It was asked whether they overgeneralise, and if they do, in what way
(i.e. using de as the default or not). Observing previous research, it was hypothesised that the second
language learners should show non-targetlike behaviour in the production task. It was predicted that
they should mainly overgeneralise de, but that they may also use het with common nouns. It was also
predicted that second language learners who have had lengthy and intensive exposure to Dutch may
show targetlike behaviour in the production task (on both de and het). Learners who have had little
exposure to Dutch should not show targetlike behaviour, however. Therefore, a significant difference
between the performance of learners with lengthy and intensive exposure and that of learners with
little exposure was predicted. A frequency effect was also predicted, i.e. learners should perform
significantly better on high-frequency nouns than on medium-frequency nouns.
The analysis of the individual results shows that three different response patterns are attested
in the production data. The second language learners who show the targetlike pattern 1 consistently
use de with common nouns and het with neuter nouns. Only a minority of the second language
learners shows this pattern, however. The most frequent pattern is pattern 2. Learners who show this
133
pattern use de with common nouns and both de and het with neuter nouns. The second most frequent
pattern is pattern 3. Learners who show this pattern use de and het with both common and neuter
nouns. Patterns 2 and 3 together show that the vast majority of the second language learners uses de
with neuter nouns. Pattern 3 shows that the learners also use het with common nouns.
Because only a minority of the second language learners is targetlike, the prediction that they
should show non-targetlike behaviour in the production task is borne out. The prediction that the
learners should mainly overgeneralise de is also borne out, since the majority of them uses de with
neuter nouns. The frequent use of de with neuter nouns points to a default strategy. The prediction
that the learners should also use het with common nouns is borne out as well.
The comparison of the groups analysis suggests that the factor length of exposure does not
have an effect on production. No significant differences have been found between groups LE1 and
LE2. Thus, the prediction that this should be the case is not borne out. However, the correlation
analysis shows that the factor length of exposure correlates significantly with performance on het, the
high frequency nouns, the high frequency het-nouns and the test as a whole. When length of exposure
increases, performance on these test categories improves, i.e. the more exposure the second
language learners have had, the better the test categories are produced. Because length of exposure
correlates significantly with performance on het, the high frequency nouns, the high frequency hetnouns and the test as a whole, the prediction that length of exposure should have an effect on
performance on the production task is partly borne out. The prediction is not fully borne out, since
length of exposure only has an effect on the performance on het and not on performance on de. It was
also predicted that the factor intensity of exposure should have an effect on performance. However,
since there is only a significant difference between groups IEI and IE2 for performance on the medium
frequency nouns, and since no significant correlations have been found between intensity of exposure
and performance on the production task, this prediction does not seem to be borne out.
It is surprising that length of exposure does not have an effect on the production of de, and
that intensity of exposure does not have an effect on the production of de and het altogether. Second
language learners who have had lengthy and intensive exposure should produce de and het better
than learners who have had little exposure, because they have had more time and opportunity to store
the gender of individual nouns in the mental lexicon. As mentioned in section 2.2, there are hardly any
morphological and semantic regularities which could point to the gender of nouns in Dutch, and the
regularities that exist have many exceptions (Donaldson, 1987: 27-33; Geerts et al., 1984: 41-49).
Therefore, the acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender largely has to be done through word learning
and learners need sufficient input in order to be able to acquire a targetlike grammatical gender
system (Unsworth, in press). As mentioned in the previous section, the majority of the second
language learners who have had lengthy and intensive exposure are late acquirers. This may explain
why learners who have had lengthy exposure do not perform better on de, and why learners who have
had intensive exposure do not perform better on both de and het than learners who have had little
exposure. Table 155 shows that age of first exposure correlates with the production of het, but not with
the production of de, however. Still, it should be observed that this correlation analysis includes all
second language learners, and not just the late acquirers. As a consequence, it is not possible to draw
134
conclusions for the second language learner group as a whole as to why length of exposure does not
have an effect on the production of de, and why intensity of exposure does not have an effect on
production altogether.
No significant differences have been found between the second language learners' production
of the high-and medium frequency nouns. Thus, at first glance, frequency effects do not seem to
occur. However, when the various factors influencing performance are controlled for, frequency effects
are observed. When age of first exposure is controlled for, group AE1 performs significantly better on
the medium frequency nouns and the medium frequency het-nouns than group AE2, but there are no
differences between the groups for performance on the high frequency nouns and the high frequency
het-nouns. Thus, the medium frequency nouns and the medium frequency het-nouns seem to be more
difficult for late acquirers than the high frequency nouns and the high frequency het-nouns, and earlier
acquisition seems to lead to a better production of the medium frequency nouns and the medium
frequency het-nouns. When length of exposure is controlled for, the difference between groups LE1
and LE2 for performance on het and the medium frequency het-nouns is approaching significance,
with group LE2 performing better than group LE1. This is not the case for performance on the high
frequency het-nouns. Thus, the medium frequency het-nouns seem to be more difficult for learners
who have had little exposure, and lengthy exposure seems to lead to a better production of the
medium frequency het-nouns. Finally, when intensity of exposure is controlled for, group IE2 produces
the medium frequency nouns significantly better than group IE1 and the difference between the
groups for performance on both the medium frequency de-nouns and the medium frequency hetnouns shows a tendency towards significance, with group IE2 performing better than group IEI.
Because this is not the case for the high frequency nouns, the medium frequency nouns (both the deand het-nouns) seem to be more difficult for learners who have had little exposure, and intensive
exposure seems to lead to a better production of the medium frequency nouns. Consequently, the
prediction that an effect of frequency should be visible in performance also appears to be borne out.
7.3 Perception and Production
When the results of the perception experiment and the production task are combined, the
results suggest that a better perception of het may lead to a better production of het and vice versa.
Surprisingly, a better production of het also seems to lead to a better perception of de and the
demonstratives. However, the way in which the relation between perception and production has been
investigated here is of a rather basic nature, and a more thorough approach may be of more use in
order to reveal the relationship between the second language learners' perception and production of
het. For instance, this study has not investigated whether the phonological contexts the second
language learners have difficulties with in perception are the same contexts they have difficulties with
in production. Therefore, it is not certain that the second language learners' production difficulties are
solely due to their misperception of het. Future research will have to determine the nature of the
relationship between the second language learners' perception and production of het and the effect of
phonological context on this relationship.
135
7.4 Theoretical Implications
As stated in Chapter 2, previous studies into the acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender have
shown that second language learners of Dutch have serious difficulties with the definite determiners,
especially with neuter het. Second language learners of Dutch systematically show a delay in the
acquisition of the definite determiners as well as signs of fossilisation in a non-targetlike stage of
overgeneralisation (Hulk & Cornips 2006a,b; Cornips et al., 2006; Blom et al., in press; Unsworth, in
press; Cornips & Hulk, in press; Brouwer et al., in press). Learners mainly overgeneralise de, but
make errors in the other direction as well by also using het for common nouns (Cornips et al., 2006;
Unsworth, in press). Unsworth observes that the use of het for common nouns may be a marker of
bilingualism in Dutch. Unsworth's study suggests that lengthy and intensive exposure may lead to
more targetlike responses in bilinguals, i.e. that the factors length and intensity of exposure have a
significant effect on acquisition. Sabourin et al. (2006) have found that second language acquirers of
Dutch gender produce the targetlike determiner more often for high frequency nouns than for low
frequency nouns, i.e. a frequency effect is found.
Brouwer et al. (in press), Hulk & Cornips (2006b) and Cornips & Hulk (in press) propose that
the problems second language learners of Dutch experience with Dutch neuter gender may be caused
by an underspecification of the grammatical gender feature, i.e. second language learners are aware
of gender but do not have a complete knowledge and do not know the right gender specification (yet).
Most of the previous studies are on production. The study by Brouwer et al. (in press) is the only study
to date which focuses on comprehension. The present study has attempted to gain more insight into
the role of comprehension in the second language acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender. It was
hypothesised that the reason for second language learners' difficulties with Dutch neuter gender (het)
may be a misperception of het caused by the non-saliency of het as induced by its phonological
context. When het is systematically missed in perception, second language learners are likely to fail to
store het in the mental lexicon and only de may be represented in the mental lexicon. This may lead to
an underspecification of the grammatical gender feature in second language learners. This could
explain second language learners' overgeneralisation of de. This proposal was put forward as the
saliency hypothesis.
The results of the present study indicate that second language learners of Dutch indeed have
difficulties with the perception of het. Because the hypothesised hierarchy of difficulty is not entirely
borne out in the results, the influence of phonological context on the misperception of het is not
entirely clear. However, the hypothesised hierarchy of difficulty is largely borne out in the results: the
second language learners find het more difficult to perceive when followed by /t/ than when followed
by other consonants, and both the second language learners and the Dutch control group have
serious difficulties with the t-het-t contexts. Although het is also difficult to perceive when followed by
vowels, and the prediction that het should be more difficult to perceive when followed by consonants
than when followed by vowels does not appear to be borne out, the second language learners also
have difficulties with het when het is followed by consonants (i.e. with the het-stop and the fricativehet-stop contexts). Moreover, like all other contexts of het in the present study, the het-vowel and the
stop-het-vowel contexts also render het non-salient, and the second language learners' misperception
136
of het in these contexts is therefore not surprising. Furthermore, the results of the perception
experiment and the production task combined suggest that a better perception of het may lead to a
better production of het. As to the question of whether the results of the present study support the
saliency hypothesis, I therefore propose a tentative 'yes'.
Because the results of the present study appear to support the saliency hypothesis, they also
(indirectly) support the theory of an underspecification of the grammatical gender feature in second
language learners as proposed by Brouwer et al. (in press), Hulk & Cornips (2006b) and Cornips &
Hulk (in press). Furthermore, since the results suggest that a better perception of het may lead to a
better production of het and vice versa, both perception and production appear to be important for the
acquisition process. This is in line with what Llisterri (1995) and Rochet (1995) propose. The results of
the present study also seem to support the proposal made by Holmes & Dejean de la Bâtie (1999),
who state that lexical and sublexical cues are crucial to the process of gender acquisition. Holmes &
Dejean de la Bâtie state that lexical information is likely to be most important, while sublexical
information such as word endings indicating gender may reinforce the strength of gender knowledge in
a postaccess procedure of gender confirmation. The production results of the present study show that
the second language learners have problems with the acquisition of het. As the saliency hypothesis
proposes, acquisition difficulties may be due to the fact that lexical gender cues (het, de) are to a large
extent non-salient and may therefore be missed in perception. Holmes & Dejean de la Bâtie's proposal
is supported by the finding that the saliency hypothesis appears to be borne out, and that a better
perception of het may lead to a better production of het.
It should also be observed that the present study has investigated the second language
acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender by native speakers of English, while most of the previous
research investigates the acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender by native speakers of languages
other than English. Therefore, future research will have to determine whether the results of the present
study are also borne out when the perception and production of second language learners who are
native speakers of languages other than English are investigated.
The production results show that the present study supports the previous research. The vast
majority of the second language learners uses de with neuter nouns. This points to overgeneralisation
by means of a default strategy. Almost one third of the learners also uses het with common nouns.
The results also show an effect of frequency. When the factors influencing performance are controlled
for, the medium frequency nouns appear to be more difficult for the second language learners than the
high frequency nouns. A possible fossilisation in the non-targetlike stage of overgeneralisation has not
been investigated in any depth here, but it is very well possible that some second language learners
have indeed fossilised. Tables 146 and 151 suggest that there are learners who have received lengthy
and intensive exposure and who are nonetheless non-targetlike in their production of de and het.
With respect to the influence of the factors length of exposure, intensity of exposure, age of
first exposure and proficiency, the following can be observed. Age of first exposure and proficiency
appear to have an effect on perception. Earlier acquisition and a higher proficiency level seem to lead
to a better perception of het. Furthermore, age of first exposure, proficiency and length of exposure
appear to have an effect on production. Earlier acquisition and lengthier exposure seem to lead to a
137
better production of het, and a higher proficiency level seems to lead to a better production of both de
and het. The finding that length of exposure has an effect on production is in line with Unsworth's
finding (in press). Intensity of exposure does not appear to have an effect on performance, however.
8 Conclusion
The present study has investigated the perception of the definite determiners het and de by
second language learners of Dutch in order to determine whether they can perceive het despite its
non-saliency as induced by its phonological context. A failure to perceive het is likely to lead to a
failure to store het in the mental lexicon. Since de is mostly salient, only de may be represented in the
mental lexicon. This may lead to an underspecification of the grammatical gender feature in second
language learners, which could explain second language learners' overgeneralisation of de (saliency
hypothesis). The present study has also investigated the second language learners' production
capacities in order to determine whether they can correctly produce de and het.
The results of the perception experiment indicate that the second language learners have
difficulties with the perception of het. The second language learners perceive het significantly worse
than the Dutch control group. Thus, the second language learners fail to perceive het on a regular
basis, perceiving de instead and thereby 'overgeneralising' de in perception. The influence of
phonological context on the misperception of het has extensively been investigated. The hypothesised
hierarchy of difficulty is largely borne out in the results and the unpredicted results (difficulties with the
het-vowel and the stop-het-vowel contexts) are unsurprising. Moreover, the results of the perception
experiment and the production task combined suggest that a better perception of het may lead to a
better production of het. For these reasons, the saliency hypothesis appears to be borne out. Because
the hypothesised hierarchy of difficulty is not entirely borne out in the results, the influence of
phonological context on the misperception of het is not entirely clear, however. Moreover, the present
study has not investigated whether the phonological contexts the second language learners have
difficulties with in perception are the same contexts they have difficulties with in production. Therefore,
it cannot be stated with certainty that the acquisition difficulties the second language learners show in
production are solely due to their misperception of het. The results of the perception experiment and
the production task combined also suggest that a better production of het may lead to a better
perception of het, i.e. possibly, learners first need to have knowledge about gender before they can
perceive het in everyday speech. Further research will have to determine the influence of phonological
context on the misperception of het, the nature of the relationship between the second language
learners' perception and production of het and the effect of phonological context on this relationship.
The results of the production task support the previous research. The vast majority of the
second language learners uses de with neuter nouns, which suggests overgeneralisation by means of
a default strategy. Almost one third of the second language learners also uses het with common
nouns. When the various factors are controlled for, frequency effects are found; the medium frequency
nouns seem to be more difficult for the second language learners than the high frequency nouns.
138
The perception results show that the factors age of first exposure and proficiency appear to
have an effect on perception. Earlier acquisition and a higher proficiency level seem to lead to a better
perception of het. The production results show that age of first exposure, proficiency and length of
exposure appear to have an effect on production. Earlier acquisition and lengthier exposure seem to
lead to a better production of het and a higher proficiency level seems to lead to a better production of
both de and het.
Finally, the present study has investigated the acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender by
native speakers of English, but most of the previous research investigates the acquisition of Dutch
grammatical gender by native speakers of languages other than English. Future research will therefore
have to determine whether the results of the present study are also borne out when the perception
and production of second language learners who are native speakers of languages other than English
are investigated.
139
References
Anderson, R.T. (1999). "Loss of gender agreement in L1 attrition: Preliminary results". In: Bilingual
Research Journal 23 (4). pp. 319-38.
Andersson, A.-B. (1992). Second Language Learner’s Acquisition of Grammatical Gender in Swedish.
PhD thesis. University of Göteborg, Sweden.
Baayen, H.R., Piepenbrock, R. & Van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical data base. Dutch, English,
German. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistics Data Consortium.
Beck, M.L. (1998). "L2 acquisition and obligatory head movement: English-speaking learners of
German and the Local impairment hypothesis". In: Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20 (3). pp.
311-48.
Birdsong, D. (1999). "Whys and Why Nots of the Critical Period Hypothesis for Second Language
Acquisition". In: D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 1-23.
Birdsong, D. & Paik, J. (2008). "Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment". In: B. Spolsky
& F. Hult (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Linguistics. London: Blackwell. pp. 424-437.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). "The logical problem of foreign language learning". In: Linguistic Analysis 20.
pp. 3-49.
Blom, E., Polišenská, D. & Weerman, F. (2005). “Variation in Inflection: A comparison of agreement
inflection in child L1, child L2 and adult L2 Dutch”. Paper presented at Variflex workshop, University of
Amsterdam, 20th December.
Blom, E., Polišenská, D. & Weerman, F. (in press). “Articles, Adjectives and Age of Onset: The
Acquisition of Dutch Grammatical Gender”. In: Second Language Research.
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2007). PRAAT: doing phonetics by computer. Institute of Phonetic
Sciences, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. <http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/>.
Böhme, K. & Levelt, W.J.M. (1979). “Children’s use and awareness of natural and syntactic gender in
possessive pronouns”. Paper presented at the International Reading Seminar on Linguistic Awareness
and Learning to Read, Victoria, Canada.
Bol, G.W. & Kuiken, F. (1988). Grammaticale analyse van taalontwikkelingsstoornissen. PhD
dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Booij, G. (1995). The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Brouwer, S., Cornips, L. & Hulk, A. (in press). “Misrepresentation of Dutch neuter gender in older
bilingual children?” In: B. Haznedar, and E. Gavruseva (Eds.), Current Trends in Child Second
Language Acquisition: A Generative Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
140
Bruhn de Garavito, J. & White, L. (2002). “The second language acquisition of Spanish DPs: The
status of grammatical features”. In: A.T. Pérez-Leroux and J. Munoz Liveras (Eds.), The Acquisition of
Spanish Morphosyntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp.153-78.
Cain, J., Weber-Olsen, M. & Smith, R. (1987). “Acquisition strategies in a first and second language:
Are they the same?” In: Journal of Child Language 14 (2). pp. 333-52.
Caramazza, A. (1997). "How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?" In: Cognitive
Neuropsychology 14 (1). pp. 177-208.
Carroll, S.E. (1989). “Second-language acquisition and the computational paradigm”. In: Language
Learning 39 (4). pp. 535-94.
Carroll, S.E. (1999). "Putting 'input' in its proper place". In: Second Language Research 15 (4). pp.
337-88.
Carstens, V. (2000). "Concord in minimalist theory". In: Linguistic Inquiry 31 (2). pp. 319-55.
Chierchia, G., Guasti, M.T. & Guilmini, A. (2001). Nouns and articles in child grammar and the
syntax/semantics map. Ms. University of Milan, University of Siena, University of Maryland, College
Park.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press and Oxford:
Basil Blackwell Publishers. (Excerpted in The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1980). pp. 1-61).
Clark, E. (1985). “The acquisition of Romance, with special reference to French”. In: D. Slobin (Ed.),
The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition Volume 1: The Data. London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. pp. 255-372.
Comrie, B. (1999). “Grammatical Gender Systems: A Linguist’s Assessment”. In: Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 28 (5). pp. 457-66.
Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cornips, L. & Hulk, A. (in press). "Factors of success and failure in the acquisition of grammatical
gender in Dutch". In: Second Language Research.
Cornips, L., van der Hoek, M. & Verwer, R. (2006). “The acquisition of grammatical gender in bilingual
child acquisition of Dutch (by older Moroccan and Turkish children). The definite determiner, attributive
adjective and relative pronoun”. In: B. Los & J van de Weijer (Eds.). Linguistics in The Netherlands
2006. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp 40-51.
Corpus Gesproken Nederlands (CGN). Radboud University Nijmegen, Linguistics Department.
Copyright 1 April 2004 De Nederlandse Taalunie.
DeKeyser, R.M. (1998). "Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing
second language grammar". In: C.J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom
Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 42-63.
141
DeKeyser, R.M. (2001). "Automaticity and automatization". In: P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and
Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 125-51.
Dell, G.S. (1986). "A spreading-activation model of retrieval in sentence production". In: Psychological
Review 93. pp. 283-321.
Dell, G.S. (1990). "Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors". In:
Language and Cognitive Processes 5. pp. 313-49.
Desrochers, A. & Paivio, A. (1990). “Le phonème initial des noms inanimés et son effet sur
l’identification du genre grammatical”. In: Revue Canadienne de Psychologie 49. pp. 240-62.
Desrochers, A., Paivio, A. & Desrochers, S. (1989). “L’éffet de la fréquence d’usage des noms
inanimés et de la valeur prédictive de leur terminasion sur l’identification du genre grammatical”. In:
Revue Canadienne de Psychologie 43. pp. 62-73.
Dewaele, J.-M. & Veronique, D. (2001). “Gender assignment and gender agreement in advanced
French interlanguage: A cross-sectional study. In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4 (3). pp.
275-97.
Donaldson, B.C. (1987). Dutch Reference Grammar. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration and
Processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ellis, N.C. (2002). "Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of
implicit and explicit language acquisition". In: Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (2). pp. 14388.
Ellis, N.C. (2003). "Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language
structure". In: C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 63-103.
Ellis, N.C. (2005). "At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge".
In: Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 (2). pp. 305-52.
Eubank, L. & Gregg, K. (1999). "Critical periods and (second) language acquisition: divide et impera".
In: D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 65-100.
Favreau, M. & Segalowitz, N. (1983). "Automatic & controlled processes in the first-and secondlanguage reading of fluent bilinguals". In: Memory and Cognition 11 (1). pp. 56-74.
Franceschina, F. (2005) Fossilised Second Language Grammars. The acquisition of grammatical
gender. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Garrett, M.F. (1988). “Processes in language production”. In: F.J. Newmeyer (Ed.), The Cambridge
Survey of Linguistics, Vol. III: Biological and Psychological Aspects of Language. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. pp. 69-96.
142
Garrett, M.F. (1992). “Disorders of lexical selection”. In: Cognition 42. pp. 143-80.
Geerts, G. (1998). “Genusfouten: Hollanditis in Vlaanderen?” In: Verslagen en Mededelingen van de
Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal-en Letterkunde 1. pp. 68-78.
Geerts, G., Haeseryn, W., Rooij, J.D. & Toorn, M.C.v.d. (1984). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst.
Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Gillis, S. & de Houwer, A. (1998). “Dutch child language: An overview”. In: S. Gillis & A. de Houwer
(Eds.), The Acquisition of Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 1-100.
Goeman, T. (1999). T-deletie in de Nederlandse dialecten. Kwantitatieve analyse van structurele,
ruimtelijke en temporele variatie. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Den Haag: Holland
Academic Graphics.
Gussenhoven, C. (1985). "Over de fonologie van de Nederlandse clitica". In: Spektator 15. pp. 180200.
Hawkins, R. & Chan, C.Y.-H. (1997). "The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second
language acquisition: The 'Failed functional features hypothesis'". In: Second Language Research 13.
pp. 187-226.
Hawkins, R. & Franceschina, F. (2004). "Explaining the acquisition of and non-acquisition of
determiner-noun gender concord in French and Spanish". In: P. Prévost & J. Paradis (Eds.), The
Acquisition of French in Different Contexts. Focus on Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. pp. 175-205.
Holmes, V.M. & Segui, J. (2004). “Sublexical and Lexical Influences on Gender Assignment in
French”. In: Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 33 (6). pp. 425-57.
Holmes, V.M. & Segui, J. (2006). “Assigning Grammatical Gender During Word Production”. In:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 35 (1). pp. 5-30.
Holmes, V.M. & Dejean de la Bâtie, B. (1999). “Assignment of grammatical gender by native speakers
and foreign learners of French”. In: Applied Psycholinguistics 20 (4). pp. 479-506.
Houwer, A. de (1987). “Nouns and their companions: Or how a three-year-old handles the Dutch
gender system”. In: Belgian Journal of Linguistics 2. pp. 55-73.
Hulk, A. & Cornips, L. (2005). Bilingual acquisition and ‘fossilisation’ versus ‘acceleration’ of
grammatical gender agreement of the definite article. Ms. Meertens Insitute/University of Amsterdam.
Hulk, A. & Cornips, L. (2006a). “The boundaries between child L2 and 2L1: Do-support in child Dutch”.
In: L Dekydtspotter, R.A. Sprouse & A. Liljestrand (Eds.). GASLA-7 Proceedings. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla.
Hulk, A. & Cornips, L. (2006b). “Neuter gender and interface vulnerability in child L2/2L1 Dutch”. In: S.
Unsworth, T. Parodi, A. Sorace, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Paths of development in L1 and L2
Acquisition: In honor of Bonnie D. Schwartz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 107-34.
143
Hulk, A. & Müller, N. (2000). “Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and
pragmatics”. In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3. pp. 227-44.
Hyltenstam, K. (1992). "Non-native features of near-native speakers". In: R.J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive
processes in bilinguals. Amsterdam: North Holland. pp. 351-68.
Hyltenstam, K. & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). "Maturational constraints in SLA". In: C.J. Doughty & M.H.
Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 539-99.
Jescheniak, J.-D. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Johnson, E.K. (2004). “Grammatical gender and early word recognition in Dutch”. In: A. Brugos, M.R.
Clark-Cotton & S. Ha (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Boston University Conference on Language
Development, 2005. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. pp. 320-30.
Jongenburger, W. & van Heuven, V.J. (1991) "The distribution of (word-initial) glottal stop in Dutch". In:
F. Drijkoningen & A. van Kemenade (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 101-110.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A Functional Approach to Child Language. A study of determiners and
reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkman, T.W. (1996). Statistics to Use. <http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/>. (14 May 2008).
Kooij, J.G. (1987). “Dutch”. In: B. Comrie (Ed.). The world’s major languages. London: Routledge. pp.
139-56.
Lardiere, D. (2000). "Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition". In: J. Archibald (Ed.),
Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 102-29.
Lenneberg, E. (1964). "The Capacity of Language Acquisition". In: J.A. Fodor & J.J. Katz (Eds.)., The
structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York/London/Sydney: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1999). “Models of Word Production”. In: Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3 (6). pp. 22332.
Levelt, W.J.M. (2001). “Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access”. In: Proceedings of the
National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America 98 (23). pp. 13464-471.
Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3rd Ed.
144
Llisterri, J. (1995). “Relationships between speech production and speech perception in a second
language”. In: K. Elenius and P. Branderud (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of
Phonetic Sciences 4. Stockholm, Sweden, 13-19 August 1995. Stockholm: KTH / Stockholm
University. pp. 92-99.
MacWhinney, B. (1978). “The acquisition of morphophonology”. In: Mongraphs of the Society for
Research in Child Development 43 (1-2, Serial no. 174).
Meisel, J. (2007). "Exploring the limits of the LAD". In: Working papers in multilingualism 80. Hamburg:
Hamburg University. pp. 3-31.
Mills, A.E. (1986). The Acquisition of Gender: Evidence from German and English. Berlin: Springer.
Mitterer, H. & Ernestus, M. (2006). "Listeners recover /t/s that speakers reduce: Evidence from /t/lenition in Dutch". In: Journal of Phonetics 34. pp. 73-103.
Mϋller, N. (1990). “Developing two gender assignment systems simultaneously”. In: J.M. Meisel (Ed.),
Two First Languages: Early Grammatical Development in Bilingual Children. Dordrecht: Foris. pp. 194232.
Müller, N. & Hulk, A. (2001). “Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual first language acquisition: Italian
and French as recipient languages”. In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4. pp. 1-21.
Paradis , J. & Genesee, F. (1995). “Language differentiation in early bilingual development”. In:
Journal of Child Language 22 (3). pp. 611-31.
Prévost, P. & White, L. (2000). "Missing surface in inflection or impairment in second language
acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement". In: Second Language Research 16 (2). pp. 103-33.
RANDOM.ORG Random Sequence Generator. Ed. Dr. M. Haahr. 1998-2008. Department of
Computer Science Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. March 2008. <http://www.random.org/sequences/>.
Rochet, B.L. (1995). “Perception and production of L2 speech sounds by adults”. In: W. Strange (Ed.),
Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in CrossLanguage Speech Research. Timonium, MD: York Press Inc. pp. 379-410.
Rogers, M. (1987). "Learner's difficulties with grammatical gender in German as a foreign language".
In: Applied Linguistics 8. pp. 48-74.
Sabourin, L. (2003). Grammatical Gender and Second Language Processing: an ERP Study. Doctoral
Dissertation, Groningen University, The Netherlands. Groningen: Groningen University Press.
Sabourin, L. & Haverkort, M. (2003). “Neural substrates of representation and processing of a second
language”. In: R. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken & R.J. Towell (Eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface in
second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 175-95.
145
Sabourin, L., Stowe, L.A. & de Haan, G. (2006). “Transfer effects in learning a second language
grammatical gender system”. In: Second Language Research 22 (1). pp. 1-29.
Schachter, J. (1996). "Maturation and the issue of Universal Grammar in second language
acquisition". In: V. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San
Diego: Academic Press. pp. 159-93.
Schriefers, H. & Jescheniak, J.D. (1999). “Representation and Processing of Grammatical Gender in
Language Production: A Review”. In: Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28 (6). pp. 575-600.
Segalowitz, N. (2003). "Automaticity". In: C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.). The Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 382-408.
Singleton, D. & Ryan, L. (2004). Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. 2nd Ed. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters Ltd.
Strozer, J.R. (1994). Language Acquisition After Puberty. Washington D.C: Georgetown University
Press.
Taft, M. & Meunier, F. (1998). “Lexical representation of gender: A quasi-regular domain”. In: Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research 27 (1). pp. 23-45.
Ullmann, M.T. (2001a). "A neurocognitive perspective on language: the declarative/procedural model".
In: Nature Reviews (Neuroscience) 2. pp. 717-26.
Ullmann, M.T. (2001b). "The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the
declarative/procedural model". In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4 (1). pp. 105-22.
Ullmann, M.T. (2004). "Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural
model". In: Cognition 92 (1-2). pp. 231-70.
Umbel, V. & Oller, D.K. (1995). "Developmental changes in receptive vocabulary in Hispanic bilingual
school children". In: B. Harley (Ed.), Lexical Issues in Language Learning. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. pp. 29-80.
Unsworth, S. (in press). "Age and input in the acquisition of grammatical gender in Dutch". In: Second
Language Research.
Van Berkum, J.J.A. (1996). The psycholinguistics of grammatical gender: Studies in language
comprehension and production. PhD Dissertation, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics,
Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Nijmegen: Nijmegen University Press.
Van Berkum, J.J.A (1997). “Syntactic processes in speech production: the retrieval of grammatical
gender”. In Cognition 64 (2). pp. 115-52.
Vandeputte, O., Vincent, P. & Hermans, T. (1991). Dutch: The language of twenty million Dutch and
Flemish people. Rekkem, Belgium: Stichting Ons Erfdeel.
146
Van der Velde, M. (2003). Déterminants et pronoms en Néerlandais et en Français: Syntaxe en
acquisition. Phd thesis, Université Paris 8.
Van der Velde, M. (2004). “L’Acquisition des déterminants en L1: Une étude comparative entre le
Français et le Néerlandais”. In: Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère 21. pp. 9-46.
Verrips, M. & Wijnen, F. (1998). "The acquisition of Dutch syntax". In: S. Gillis & A. De Houwer (Eds.),
The Acquisition of Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 223-300.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weerman, F., Bisschop, J. & Punt, L. (2002). "L1 and L2 Acquisition of Dutch Adjectival Flexion". Ms.,
Universiteit van Amsterdam.
White, L., Valenzuela, E., Kozlowska-MacGregor, M. & Leung, I.Y.-K. (2004). “Gender and number
agreement in nonnative Spanish”. In: Applied Psycholinguistics 25. pp. 105-33.
Wijnen, F. & Deutsch, W. (1987). “The recognition of grammatical gender in Dutch”. Paper presented
at the Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen, Aachen, April 13.
Zonneveld, R. van (1992). “Het jonge hoofd – De righthand head rule bij kinderen van 4 tot 7 jaar”. In:
De nieuwe taalgids 85 (1). pp. 37-49.
147
Appendices
Appendix 1
The nonce nouns used in the perception experiment
T- (35)
K-/P- (18/18)
VOC- (37)
taaf
taag
taam
taar
taat
tacht
tarp
tauk
taus
techt
terk
teuk
tieg
tiemp
tenk
tift
tilk
tilp
tils
tir
tirf
tirs
toem
toft
tolg
tolm
tolp
tomp
tuip
tulg
tung
tups
turp
turs
tuuf
tuup
kacht
kag
kecht
keup
kieg
kijn
kijp
kilg
koem
koft
kolg
kolm
kuft
kuig
kump
kurp
kuum
kuun
paaf
pank
parp
peef
pelk
penk
perg
picht
pijt
pir
pirk
polt
porf
puig
pung
purg
purt
puuk
aag
ak
aln
eep
eft
eps
ers
euk
eus
icht
ief
ieg
iens
ies
ift
ijn
ilg
ilk
irk
ocht
oem
oerk
oes
olk
olp
omp
oos
org
oup
uim
ulg
ulp
ump
unk
upt
uuk
irf (originally: tirf)
148
Appendix 2
The manner adverbs used in the perception experiment
-X (18)
-K (18)
-M (18)
-N (18)
-T (36)
angstig
voorzichtig
kinderachtig
koppig
behendig
bereidwillig
eenvoudig
geduldig
nieuwschierig
duizelig
vakkundig
chagrijnig
zenuwachtig
eigenaardig
schaapachtig
wanhopig
droevig
hardhandig
aanstekelijk
afstandelijk
energiek
fatsoenlijk
mogelijk
ambachtelijk
hartstochtelijk
schriftelijk
misselijk
feestelijk
gemeenschappelijk
begrijpelijk
geleidelijk
bedenkelijk
gemakkelijk
duidelijk
fanatiek
gevaarlijk
aangenaam
langzaam
spaarzaam
stiekem
ad rem
anoniem
eenzaam
moeizaam
unaniem
behulpzaam
kalm
opmerkzaam
vreedzaam
gehoorzaam
waakzaam
bedachtzaam
verdraagzaam
behoedzaam
aangedaan
alleen
voldaan
modern
clandestien
beeldschoon
ontdaan
synchroon
voortaan
spontaan
achteraan
gewoon
schuin
monotoon
gemeen
meteen
begaan
haarfijn
afgemat
gekrenkt
gericht
verhit
stipt
nonchalant
gerust
gedempt
efficiënt
ingezakt
onopgemaakt
onopgemerkt
resoluut
nauwgezet
naakt
elegant
decadent
charmant
zacht
verontrust
onbewust
hypocriet
beslist
welbespraakt
arrogant
impliciet
belust
beheerst
opgejut
verdacht
intelligent
bewust
verrukt
ontzet
attent
enthousiast
149
English translation of the manner adverbs
-X (18)
-K (18)
-M (18)
-N (18)
-T (36)
frightened
carefully
childishly
stubbornly
dexterously
willingly
easily
patiently
curiously
dizzy
skilfully
sulkily
nervously
strangely
sheepishly
desperately
sorrowfully
roughly
infectiously
standoffishly
energetically
decently
possibly
traditionally
passionately
in writing
sickly
festively
jointly
understandably
gradually
gravely
easily
lucidly
fanatically
dangerously
pleasantly
slowly
sparingly
stealthily
quick-wittedly
anonymously
lonely
laboriously
unanimously
obligingly
calmly
carefully
peacefully
obediently
watchfully
thoughtfully
peacefully
cautiously
moved
alone
contently
modernly
illicitly
beautifully
thorougly upset
synchronically
from now on
spontaneously
last in line
just
disapprovingly
monotonously
wickedly
immediately
sympathetically
minutely
exhausted
offendedly
purposefully
heatedly
precisely
carelessly
safely
subdued
efficiently
bent
without make-up on
unnoticedly
resolutely
scrupulously
naked
elegantly
decadently
charmingly
softly
uneasily
unconsciously
hypocritically
certainly
eloquently
arrogantly
implicitly
keen
calmly
pent up
suspiciously
intelligently
deliberately
enrapturedly
aghast
considerately
enthusiastically
150
Appendix 3
The test sentences used in the perception experiment (English translation included)
DE (the)
1. Bang voor infecties, riep zij angstig de tieg terug.
Afraid of infections, called she frightened the tieg back.
(She was afraid of infections, and called back the tieg.)
2. Antiquairs geven altijd voorzichtig de koem terug aan hun klanten.
Antiquarians give always carefully the koem back to their customers.
(Antiquarians always carefully give the koem back to their customers.)
3. Zij negeerde kinderachtig de iens om zijn gedrag.
She ignored childishly the iens because of his/its behaviour.
(She childishly ignored the iens because of his/its behaviour.)
4. Om opstandig te zijn, verwijderde hij koppig de ilg uit zijn moeders computer.
In order to rebellious be, removed he stubbornly the ilg from his mother’s computer.
(As an act of rebellion, he stubbornly removed the ilg from his mother’s computer.)
5. Zij lachte zeer aanstekelijk de tilk toe.
She laughed very infectiously the tilk at.
(She laughed very infectiously at the tilk.)
6. Hij groet afstandelijk de irf, omdat hij haar eigenlijk niet aardig vindt.
He greets standoffishly the irf, because he her in reality not like does.
(He standoffishly greets the irf, because in reality he does not like her.)
7. Door haar ADHD rende ze energiek de kuft rond.
Because of her ADHD ran she energetically the kuft around.
(Because of her ADHD she ran energetically around the kuft.)
8. Vincent ruimde fatsoenlijk de pelk op voordat zijn date langs zou komen.
Vincent cleared decently the pelk away before his date by would come.
(Vincent decently cleared the pelk away before his date would come by.)
9. Hij heeft mogelijk de oem verdraaid en moet nu rust houden.
151
He has possibly the oem twisted and has to now rest.
(He has possibly twisted the oem and has to rest now.)
10. Marga van Praag kondigde aangenaam de turp af.
Marga van Praag proclaimed pleasantly the turp.
(Marga van Praag pleasantly proclaimed the turp.)
11. Terroristen vernietigen langzaam de porf van alle presidenten.
Terrorists destroy slowly the porf of all presidents.
(Terrorists slowly destroy the porf of all presidents.)
12. Zij heeft altijd spaarzaam de oup bewaard, om later aan haar zoon te geven.
She has always sparingly the oup kept, in order to later on to her son give.
(She has always sparingly kept the oup, in order to give to her son later on.)
13. Suzanne kuste stiekem de ump tijdens wiskundeles.
Suzanne kissed stealthily the ump during math class.
(Suzanne stealthily kissed the ump during math class.)
14. Een klein wit hondje stapte aangedaan de tolg uit.
A little white dog stepped moved the tolg out of.
(A little white dog stepped moved out of the tolg.)
15. Een oude man liep alleen de tuip in om een boek uit te zoeken.
An old man walked alone the tuip into in order to a book select.
(An old man walked alone into the tuip in order to select a book.)
16. Zij levert voldaan de kuum in en verwacht een goed cijfer.
She hands contently the kuum in and expects a good mark.
(She contently hands in the kuum and expects a good mark.)
17. Zij had modern de pijt aangekleed in een prachtige jurk van Prada.
She had modernly the pijt dressed in a magnificent dress by Prada.
(She had modernly dressed the pijt in a magnificent dress by Prada.)
18. Drankhandelaren zijn clandestien de olp in gaan kopen.
Beverage dealers have illicitly the olp started to purchase.
(Beverage dealers have illicitly started to purchase the olp.)
152
19. Pinkeltje wandelde afgemat de tacht binnen met een zak vol stenen.
Pinkeltje walked exhausted the tacht into with a bag full of stones.
(Pinkeltje walked exhausted into the tacht with a bag full of stones.)
20. Opeens liet Mina gekrenkt de taat vallen en huilde.
Suddenly Mina offendedly the taat dropped and cried.
(Taking offence, Mina suddenly dropped the taat and cried.)
21. Zij probeert altijd gericht de taus verlegen te maken, wat erg onaangenaam is.
She tries always purposefully the taus to embarrass, which very unpleasant is.
(She always tries to embarrass the taus purposefully, which is very unpleasant.)
22. Hij begon verhit de kacht te slaan.
He began heatedly the kacht to hit.
(He heatedly began to hit the kacht.)
23. Gewoonlijk kijken postbezorgers stipt de kieg na.
Usually check postal workers precisely the kieg.
(Postal workers usually check the kieg in a precise way.)
24. Eva handelde nonchalant de paaf af en reed weg in haar auto.
Eva settled carelessly the paaf and drove off in her car.
(Eva carelessly settled the paaf and drove off in her car.)
25. Je kunt gerust de aag natmaken, want hij kan er tegen.
You can safely the aag moisten, because he/it can it take.
(You can safely moisten the aag, because he/it can take it.)
26. Wij zullen gedempt de eft inspreken, omdat er geluidsoverlast is.
We will in a subdued voice the eft record, because there noise nuisance is.
(We will record the eft in a subdued voice, because there is noise nuisance.)
27. Dagelijks maken studenten efficiënt de eus om wat bij te verdienen.
Every day make students efficiently the eus in order to some make extra money.
(Every day students efficiently make the eus in order to make some extra money.)
153
HET (the)
1. Hij ving behendig het tiemp op, zodat er geen schade was.
He caught dexterously the tiemp, so there no damage was.
(He dexterously caught the tiemp, thereby preventing damage.)
2. Een aantal mensen hielp bereidwillig het tilp om extra omzet te krijgen.
A number of people helped willingly the tilp extra sales to gain.
(A number of people willingly helped the tilp to gain extra sales.)
3. Omdat hij ervoor geleerd heeft, bouwt hij eenvoudig het kijn in elkaar.
Because he for it studied has, builds he easily the kijn together.
(Because he has studied for it, he easily builds the kijn together.)
4. Een grote groep krakers kondigde geduldig het pir aan.
A large group of squatters announced patiently the pir.
(A large group of squatters patiently announced the pir.)
5. Hij test nieuwsgierig het ies uit op zijn werk.
He tests curiously the ies out at work.
(He curiously tests out the ies at work.)
6. Daar wordt ambachtelijk het tirs gemaakt waar men dol op is.
Over there is traditionally the tirs made which everybody loves.
(Over there the tirs which everybody loves is traditionally made.)
7. Zij kuste hartstochtelijk het puig voordat hij weer vertrokken was.
She kissed passionately the puig before he again left.
(She passionately kissed the puig before he left again.)
8. Als twee mensen gaan trouwen, moet schriftelijk het ilk vastgelegd worden.
When two people get married, has to be in writing the ilk laid down.
(When two people get married, the ilk has to be laid down.)
9. Stefan moest misselijk het oerk uitspugen, waardoor hij niet meer kon leren.
Stefan had to sickly the oerk spit out, because of which he not anymore could study.
(Stefan had to spit out the oerk as he became sick, and could not study anymore as a result.)
154
10. Zij riep ad rem het tulg terug om nog één en ander uit te leggen.
She called quick-wittedly the tulg back in order to a few things explain.
(She quick-wittedly called back the tulg in order to explain a few things.)
11. Veel zwervers wonen anoniem het turs bij.
Many tramps attend anonymously the turs.
(Many tramps anonymously attend the turs.)
12. Zij kijkt elke nacht eenzaam het kuig over.
She looks every night lonely the kuig out on.
(Every night she lonely looks out on the kuig.)
13. Veel leerlingen bestuderen moeizaam het purt voor vrijdag.
Many students study laboriously the purt for Friday.
(Many students laboriously study the purt for Friday.)
14. Bij nieuwe verkiezingen zullen zij unaniem het unk wegstemmen.
During new elections will they unanimously the unk vote against.
(They will unanimously vote against the unk during new elections.)
15. Sylvia zong beeldschoon het tolm, maar won helaas geen beker.
Sylvia sang beautifully the tolm, but did win unfortunately not a trophy.
(Sylvia beautifully sang the tolm, but unfortunately she did not win a trophy.)
16. Moeder omhelsde ontdaan het koft op een middag in mei.
Mother hugged thoroughly upset the koft on an afternoon in May.
(Thoroughly upset, mother hugged the koft on an afternoon in May.)
17. Eva en Esther deden synchroon het omp na en dansten daarna moeiteloos verder.
Eva and Esther imitated synchronically the omp and danced after that effortlessly on.
(Eva and Esther synchronically imitated the omp and danced on effortlessly after that.)
18. Tim zal voortaan het uim doen, omdat hij erin geïnteresseerd is.
Tim will from now on the uim do, because he in it interested is.
(From now on Tim will do the uim, because he is interested in it.)
19. Zij verlaat ingezakt het tef en kijkt niet meer om.
She leaves bent the tef and does look not anymore back.
155
(She leaves the tef with her back bent and does not look back anymore.)
20. Zaterdagavond kwam Aïcha onopgemaakt het taaf in en bestelde een cola.
Saturday night came Aïcha without make-up on the taaf into and ordered a coke.
(Saturday night Aïcha came into the taaf without make-up on and ordered a coke.)
21. Vader liet onopgemerkt het techt los in een vlaag van medelijden.
Father let unnoticedly the techt go of in a fit of compassion.
(Unnoticedly, father let go of the techt in a fit of compassion.)
22. Zonder nadenken stuurt oma resoluut het kag terug.
Without thinking sends grandmother resolutely the kag back.
(Without thinking grandmother resolutely sends the kag back.)
23. Elke dag doet opa nauwgezet het pank om scherp te blijven.
Every day does grandfather scrupulously the pank in order to sharp stay.
(Every day grandfather scrupulously does the pank in order to stay sharp.)
24. Zij weet naakt het parp veruit te overtreffen.
She can naked the parp by a long shot surpass.
(Naked she can surpass the parp by a long shot.)
25. Zij sprak elegant het ak toe en had veel succes.
She addressed elegantly the ak and had much success.
(She addressed the ak elegantly and had much success.)
26. Elaine roept decadent het eps bij zich wanneer er betaald moet worden.
Elaine calls decadently the eps for when the bill paid has to be.
(Elaine decadently calls for the eps when the bill has to be paid.)
27. Mijn vriendin palmde charmant het icht in.
My friend won over charmingly the icht.
(Because she acted charmingly, my friend won over the icht.
DAT (that)
1. Veel mensen kwamen duizelig dat toft uit.
Many people came dizzy that toft out of.
(Many people came dizzy out of that toft.)
156
2. Schilders verven vakkundig dat ijn in een mooie kleur.
Painters paint skilfully that ijn in a beautiful colour.
(Painters skilfully paint that ijn in a beautiful colour.)
3. Mijn vriendin heeft feestelijk dat kurp versierd voor hun bruiloft.
My friend has festively that kump decorated for their wedding.
(My friend has festively decorated that kump for their wedding.)
4. Een aantal studenten test gemeenschappelijk dat olk uit, om te kijken of er nog fouten in zitten.
A number of students tests jointly that olk, in order to see whether it still mistakes shows.
(A number of students jointly tests that olk, in order to see whether it still shows mistakes.)
5. Marinus reikte behulpzaam dat tuup aan, zodat men weer verder kon werken.
Marinus passed obligingly that tuup, so everybody could continue with the work.
(Marinus obligingly passed that tuup, and everybody could continue with the work.)
6. Alle gevangenisbewaarders bewaken kalm dat kuun tegen opstand.
All prison wardens guarded calmly that kuun against an uprising.
(All prison wardens calmly guarded that kuun against an uprising.)
7. Diverse agenten luisteren dagelijks opmerkzaam dat purg af om boeven op te sporen.
Various agents listen daily carefully that purg to in order to criminals find.
(Every day, various agents carefully listen to that purg in order to find criminals.)
8. Op Kerstavond zingen zij vreedzaam dat uuk toe.
On Christmas Eve sing they peacefully that uuk for.
(On Christmas Eve they peacefully sing for that uuk.)
9. Regelmatig belt zij spontaan dat tups op om een afspraak te maken.
Regularly calls she spontaneously that tups in order to an appointment make.
(She has made a habit of spontaneously calling that tups to make an appointment.)
10. Ze reden achteraan dat ulp af, waardoor ze te laat thuis waren.
They drove last in line that ulp down, because of which they late home were.
(They drove down that ulp last in line, because of which they were home late.)
157
11. Midas Dekkers fluisterde zacht dat tauk toe op een mooie zomerdag.
Midas Dekkers whispered softly that tauk to on a beautiful summer day.
(Midas Dekkers whispered softly to that tauk on a beautiful summer day.)
12. Na een tijdje wachten ging zij verontrust dat tift controleren.
After a while waiting went she uneasily that tift to check.
(After she had waited a while, she uneasily went to check that tift.)
13. Tijdens zwemles zette zij onbewust dat kilg op stand zeven.
During the swimming lesson turned she unconsciously that kilg to pitch seven.
(During the swimming lesson she unconsciously turned that kilg to pitch seven.)
14. Hij gelastte hypocriet dat picht af, wat veel kritiek oogstte.
He cancelled hypocritically that picht, which much criticism caused.
(He hypocritically cancelled that picht, which caused much criticism.)
15. Politici zullen beslist dat euk in orde maken.
Politicians will certainly that euk in order put.
(Politicians will certainly put that euk in order.)
DEZE (this)
1. Omdat hij straf had, schreef hij chagrijnig deze teuk over.
Because he punished was, copied he sulkily this teuk.
(Because he was punished, he sulkily copied this teuk.)
2. Hij nam zenuwachtig deze ocht over van zijn broer, maar wist niet wat hij ermee moest doen.
He took nervously this ocht from his brother, but know did not what with it to do.
(He nervously took this ocht from his brother, but did not know what to do with it.)
3. Marjan veranderde begrijpelijk deze tir om een beter uitzicht te hebben.
Marjan changed understandably this tir in order to a better view to have.
(Marjan understandably changed this tir to have a better view.)
4. Een visagist bracht geleidelijk deze polt aan op haar gezicht.
A make-up artist applied gradually this polt to her face.
(A make-up artist gradually applied this polt to her face.)
158
5. Kinderen imiteren elke dag gehoorzaam deze kolm op televisie.
Children imitate every day obediently this kolm on television.
(Every day, children obediently imitate this kolm on television.)
6. Fiona sluipt waakzaam deze upt door en kijkt voorzichtig om zich heen.
Fiona sneaks watchfully this upt through and looks carefully her around.
(Fiona watchfully sneaks through this upt and carefully looks around her.)
7. Ik zal gewoon deze tomp even bijvullen.
I will just this tomp refill.
(I will just refill this tomp.)
8. Tante Els maakte er een gewoonte van om schuin deze puuk na te kijken.
Aunt Els made a habit of disapprovingly this puuk after looking.
(Aunt Els made a habit of disapprovingly looking after this puuk.)
9. Mijn docent vertelt altijd heel monotoon deze org aan ons, zodat we er niks van snappen.
My teacher tells always very monotonously this org to us, so we cannot a thing understand.
(My teacher always very monotonously tells this org to us, so we cannot understand a thing.)
10. Zij zit welbespraakt deze taar bevelen te geven en eet alleen maar mandarijntjes.
She sits eloquently this taar orders to give and only eats mandarins.
(She is eloquently giving orders to this taar and only eats mandarins.)
11. Gijsbrecht oppert arrogant deze keup te laten activeren.
Gijsbrecht suggests arrogantly this keup to have deactivated.
(Gijsbrecht arrogantly suggests to have this keup deactivated.)
12. Zij beledigde impliciet deze peef wat haar niet in dank afgenomen werd.
She offended implicitly this peef, which people clearly blamed her for.
(She implicitly offended this peef, which people clearly blamed her for.)
13. Kim is erop belust deze eep te laten mislukken.
Kim is keen on this eep the failure of.
(Kim is keen on the failure of this eep.)
14. En paar oude heren spraken beheerst deze ieg uit en gingen naar huis.
A few old gentleman pronounced calmly this ieg and went home.
159
(A few old gentlemen calmly pronounced this ieg and went home.)
DIE (that)
1. Lisa bedankte eigenaardig die kecht voor zijn hulp.
Lisa thanked strangely that kecht for his/its help.
(Lisa strangely thanked that kecht for his/its help.)
2. Hij keek schaapachtig die pirk aan, maar kreeg geen reactie.
He looked sheepishly that pirk at, but did get not a reaction.
(He sheepishly looked at that pirk, but did not get a reaction.)
3. Tijdens een operatie sneed Peter wanhopig die ief door om een teken van leven te krijgen.
During an operation cut Peter desperately that ief in order to a sign of life get.
(During an operation Peter desperately cut that ief in order to get a sign of life.)
4. Om op een idee te komen draait hij bedenkelijk die tils om.
In order to an idea hit upon turns he gravely that tils round.
(In order to hit upon an idea he gravely turns that tils round.)
5. Hij hield gemakkelijk die irk tegen, waardoor er geen slachtoffers vielen.
He stopped easily that irk, because of which there no victims were.
(He easily stopped that irk, thereby preventing casualties.)
6. Hij beëindigde bedachtzaam die tuuf, omdat hij er genoeg van had.
He thoughtfully ended that tuuf, because he it was fed up with.
(He thoughtfully ended that tuuf, because he was fed up with it.)
7. Zij leven verdraagzaam die oos na, zoals van oudsher voorgeschreven staat.
They live peacefully that oos according to, as from time immemorial dictated is.
(They peacefully live according to that oos, as is dictated from time immemorial.)
8. Wij knijpen gemeen die tolp in zijn bil.
We pinch wickedly that tolp in his buttock.
(We wickedly pinch that tolp in his buttock.)
9. Ze schakelde meteen die kolg uit toen iemand aanbelde.
160
She turned immediately that kolg off when someone rang the bell.
(She immediately turned off that kolg when someone rang the bell.)
10. Mijn zus liep opgejut die taam tegemoet en werd boos op oma.
My sister walked pent up that taam towards and became angry with grandmother.
(My sister walked towards that taam in a pent up state and became angry with grandmother.)
11. Een sjofele man rent verdacht die terk uit en agenten gaan er achteraan.
A shabby man runs suspiciously that terk out of and constables go him after.
(A shabby man suspiciously runs out of that terk and constables go after him.)
12. Kleine kinderen speelden intelligent die penk na en kregen veel applaus.
Little children played intelligently that penk after and received much applause.
(Little children intelligently played after that penk and received much applause.)
13. Wij proberen bewust die arf te negeren.
We try deliberately that arf to ignore.
(We deliberately try to ignore that arf.)
DIT (this)
1. Drie meisjes verzorgen droevig dit tuul op zijn sterfbed.
Three girls take care of sorrowfully this tuul on his deathbed.
(Full of sorrow, three girls take care of this tuul on his deathbed.)
2. Een oudere jongen mishandelde hardhandig dit perg, maar hij werd niet opgepakt.
An older boy ill-treated roughly this perg, but he was not arrested.
(An older boy roughly ill-treated this perg, but he was not arrested.)
3. Hij heeft duidelijk dit toem uitgetekend, zodat we weten wat we moeten doen.
He has lucidly this toem drawn, so we know what we have to do.
(He has lucidly drawn this toem, and therefore we know what we have to do.)
4. Omdat hij wilde winnen, speelde hij erg fanatiek dit kump mee.
Because he wanted to win, joined he very fanatically this kump in.
(Because he wanted to win, he very fanatically joined in this kump.)
5. Om stoer te doen, sprong hij gevaarlijk dit oes af en hield er een zeer been aan over.
161
In order to show off, jumped he dangerously this oes off and hurt his leg.
(While showing off, he dangerously jumped off this oes and hurt his leg.)
6. Om niemand te kwetsen heeft hij behoedzaam dit tung uitgesproken.
In order to nobody offend has he cautiously this tung expressed.
(In order to prevent offence he has cautiously expressed this tung.)
7. Hij nodigde erg begaan dit pung uit bij hem thuis.
He invited very sympathetically this pung at his home.
(He very sympathetically invited this pung at his home.)
8. Joris zal even haarfijn dit ulg uitleggen, zodat we ermee kunnen beginnen.
Joris will now minutely this tulg explain, so we on it can start.
(Now Joris will minutely explain this tulg, so we can start on it.)
9. Moeder komt verrukt dit tarp binnen en gaat alles bekijken.
Mother comes enrapturedly this tarp into and begins to everything examine.
(Mother enters this tarp in an enraptured state and begins to examine everthing.)
10. Alle toeschouwers renden ontzet dit kijp uit.
All spectators ran aghast this kijp out of.
(All spectators were aghast and ran out of this kijp.)
11. Mijn buurvrouw bracht attent dit ers weer terug.
My neighbour brought considerately this ers again back.
(My neighbour considerately brought back this ers again.)
12. Voor zijn afstuderen heeft Michel enthousiast dit ift ontworpen.
For his graduation has Michel enthusiastically this ift designed.
(Michel has enthusiastically designed this ift for his graduation.)
162
Appendix 4
INSTRUCTIES
Je gaat een experiment doen waarin je kennis van de Nederlandse taal getest
wordt. Lees de instructies goed door en vraag om mondelinge toelichting als iets niet
duidelijk is.
1
Boven in beeld staat een nonsenswoord, in dit geval fleng.
Je krijgt een Nederlandse zin te horen waarin dit woord verwerkt is.
In de gele blokjes staan de Nederlandse lidwoorden de en het.
Klik met de muis aan welk lidwoord je gehoord hebt vóór het nonsenswoord.
Er zijn ook zinnen waarin een aanwijzend voornaamwoord (demonstrative) wordt
gebruikt in plaats van een lidwoord. Kies hier het aanwijzend voornaamwoord dat je
gehoord hebt (deze vs. dit of die vs. dat).
163
2
In dit voorbeeld is gekozen voor het. Het vakje met het wordt rood.
Onderin wordt een balk geel. Geef op een schaal van 1 (onzeker) tot 5 (zeker) aan
hoe zeker je bent van je antwoord.
Hierna ga je naar het volgende scherm, waarin je weer hetzelfde moet doen.
Het is belangrijk dat je zo snel mogelijk klikt nadat je het lidwoord hebt
gehoord, ook al is de zin nog bezig.
Als je de instructies begrepen hebt, kun je beginnen met de oefening.
164
Appendix 5
Datum: … / … / 2007
Questionnaire
A. Algemene Informatie
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Geboren in (land)
Wanneer ben je naar Nederland verhuisd?
Maand:
Jaar:
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
B. Taalvaardigheid
Moedertaal (L1)
Andere talen (L2s)
1.
Leeftijd: … jaar
(Hoogste niveau eerst)
2.
Leeftijd: … jaar
Geef aan op welke leeftijd je bent
3.
Leeftijd: … jaar
begonnen met het leren van de L2.
4.
Leeftijd: … jaar
5.
Leeftijd: … jaar
Heb je cursussen Nederlands gevolgd?
Ja / Nee
Hoogste cursusniveau:
Beginner / Gemiddeld / Gevorderd
Geef jezelf een cijfer van 1 (laagst) tot 10 (hoogst)
Hoe is je lezen in het Nederlands?
Cijfer:
Hoe is je spreken in het Nederlands?
Cijfer:
Hoe is je luisteren in het Nederlands?
Cijfer:
Hoe is je schrijven in het Nederlands?
Cijfer:
Zie volgende bladzijde.
165
C. Taalgebruik
Welke taal gebruik je:
Altijd Engels Meestal
Engels,
soms
Nederlands
Engels en
Nederlands
Meestal
Nederlands
soms
Engels
Altijd
Nederlands
N/A
Thuis?
Als je TV kijkt?
Als je de krant leest?
Als je boeken leest?
Als je naar de radio luistert?
Op je werk?
Op school?
Met je vrienden?
In een winkel?
Met iemand die je voor het
eerst ontmoet?
Zie volgende bladzijde.
166
D. Lidwoordentest
Hieronder staan 60 Nederlandse zelfstandige naamwoorden. Geef aan welk lidwoord
(de of het) bij het woord hoort. We willen graag dat je spontaan antwoord geeft, dus
twijfel niet te lang. Als je echt niet weet of een woord de of het moet hebben, geef dit
dan aan met ?. Als je het woord niet kent, geef dit dan aan met X.
1. …… stilte
21. …… activiteit
41. …… houding
2. …… hoofd
22. …… kruid
42. …… bedrijf
3. …… boom
23. …… haan
43. …… visioen
4. …… plaats
24. …… naam
44. …… ritme
5. …… laken
25. …… gebied
45. …… scène
6. …… vuur
26. …… beslissing
46. …… functie
7. …… antwoord
27. …… gesprek
47. …… schema
8. …… kennis
28. …… reden
48. …… ontwerp
9. …… vliegveld
29. …… contact
49. …… casino
10. …… informatie
30. …… beweging
50. …… kamer
11. …… gevoel
31. …… infectie
51. …… wijk
12. …… koninkrijk
32. …… pistool
52. …… transport
13. …… systeem
33. …… verjaardag
53. …… feit
14. …… resultaat
34. …… voorbeeld
54. …… inspecteur
15. …… jaloezie
35. …… suggestie
55. …… schip
16. …… lever
36. …… piano
56. …… oever
17. …… water
37. …… podium
57. …… avontuur
18. …… snor
38. …… dier
58. …… volgorde
19. …… mengsel
39. …… konijn
59. …… kliniek
20. …… manier
40. …… hertog
60. …… patiënt
Zie volgende bladzijde.
167
E. Vul het woorddeel in
Op de volgende bladzijden staan 3 korte Nederlandstalige tekstjes. In de teksten zijn
gaten gevallen. Het zijn geen hele woorden die zijn weggelaten, maar delen van
woorden. Het is de bedoeling dat je uit het zinsverband probeert af te leiden welk
woorddeel op de puntjes zou kunnen staan. De eerste zin is steeds helemaal intact
gelaten om je een beetje op weg te helpen. Je hebt maximaal 5 minuten de tijd per
tekst.
Zie volgende bladzijde.
168
Tekst 1
Ik houd van Nederland en niet zo’n beetje ook. Waarom ik van het land
houd is niet alleen omdat velen van wie ik houd hier leven, nee, het is
me___________________
dan
groo___________________
reden
d___________________.
De
v___________________
mijn
lie___________________ voor het land ko___________________ voort
u___________________ het feit dat al___________________ zo
geor___________________ en syste___________________ is. Er
i___________________ een systeem e___________________ het
wer___________________. Je kan, ni___________________ zonder
twi___________________,
dic___________________
maar
ogen
to___________________
er___________________
met
uitgaan
d___________________ het recht zege___________________.
Zie volgende bladzijde.
169
Tekst 2
Openlijke narcisten zijn mensen met een opgeblazen gevoel over
zichzelf. Ze ei___________________ vaak ande___________________
aandacht
o___________________
en
ko___________________
charmant ov___________________, ond___________________ het feit
d___________________
ze
wei___________________
besef
he___________________ van de beho___________________ van
anderen.
Verb___________________
narcisten
zijn
weli___________________ net z___________________ hevig met
zichzelf
arrogant
be___________________
en
a___________________
ma___________________
ze
ev___________________
openlijke
narcisten,
do___________________
dit
o___________________ een subti___________________ manier.
Zie volgende bladzijde.
170
Tekst 3
Het internationaal perscentrum Nieuwspoort discussieert weer eens over
de
code.
De
Haagse
soci___________________
waar
h___________________ journaille en de poli___________________ in
een
onged___________________
samenzijn
verk___________________, hanteert si___________________ jaar en
d___________________
de
ongesc___________________
d___________________
wat
er
gez___________________
bui___________________
wordt
mag
regel
t___________________
plekke
ni___________________
naar
ko___________________.
Alt___________________: niet her___________________ mag worden
tot
de
betre___________________
persoon
en
pla___________________. Voorzitter van het bestuur van Nieuwspoort
Max
de
Bok
maa___________________
onlangs
pla___________________ voor Casper Becx, maar het
beleid bleef
ongewijzigd.
Bedankt voor je medewerking!
171
Appendix 6
Questionnaire Nederlandse Controls
Datum: … / … / 2007
1. Datum: ... / ... / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
2. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
3. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
4. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
172
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
5. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
6. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
7. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
8. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
173
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding (Geef
hoogste niveau
aan)
9. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
10. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
11. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
12. Datum: … / … / 2007
174
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
13. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
14. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
15. Datum: … / … / 2007
Naam
Geslacht
Man / Vrouw
Geboortedatum
… / … / 19 …
Moedertaal
Opleiding
(Geef hoogste
niveau aan)
175