Lexicography in a Minority Language: A Multifunctional Online Dutch-Frisian Dictionary

Lexicography in a Minority Language: A Multifunctional Online Dutch-Frisian Dictionary Abstract The Fryske Akademy in Leeuwarden, the Netherlands, has begun compiling an online Dutch-Frisian dictionary (in Frisian: Online Nederlânsk-Frysk Wurdboek, abbreviated to ONFW). Frisian, a member of the West Germanic language family, is spoken in the Dutch Province of Fryslân by half the population, some 350,000 people. In 2014, it became the second officially recognized language of the Netherlands, alongside the dominant Dutch. The situation of Frisian means that there are few people and resources available to create a dictionary that would serve the broadest possible audience. The most recent Dutch-Frisian dictionaries are FRD (1985), which no longer reflects current usage, and the simpler, more concise FRD (2007). In this article we explain why we chose a Dutch-Frisian production dictionary as our starting point, and we describe how it is designed to help multiple user groups write texts in Frisian and gain an understanding of the Frisian language. We also look at the selection of Frisian language material: dialect forms or standard language, purisms or loan words. Lastly, we outline the software for editing and using the dictionary, and we sketch the further progress of the project. 1. Background Before describing the ONFW, we will first outline the situation of the Frisian language. Frisian is first and foremost a spoken language. Because of its weak social position, and because all Frisian speakers also master Dutch, the national language, many people have no urgent need to write in Frisian. This has led to a growing divergence between the spoken language and the conservative, standardized written language, as a consequence of which the spoken language is not used by writers, and the written language is not understood well by all speakers. Because of this discrepancy between the spoken and written forms, Hof (1933: xiv) argued that more should be written in Frisian, something he believed could be fostered by good education. The necessary educational conditions were put in place over the years: in 1937, primary school pupils were granted the right to be taught in Frisian and in 1980 this became a requirement, which in 1993 was extended to include the lower level of secondary school. In practice, however, education in Frisian has proven minimal. Despite the fact that Frisian does not function optimally as a written language and does not possess a rich written tradition, a fairly standardized written language with unambiguous spelling rules has nevertheless developed over the years. According to Hof (1914: 16ff, 1941: 228ff), this language is made up of a number of Frisian dialects that differ in particular by phonetic and phonological variation, show little lexical differences, and morphologically and syntactically almost match, and is based on the writings of iconic authors from the 17th to early 19th centuries, who then served as models for later writers (Poortinga 1960). After a long series of dictionaries in the 20th century, most of which employed a broad standard inclusive of dialectal variation (Århammar 1990: 2026, Breuker 2003, Duijff 2010: 1480-1481), recently the provincial authorities officially adopted a standard wordlist (Taalweb 2015). This wordlist is based on the Frisian standard tradition and on new insights and choices (for the motivation of the redaction of the wordlist, see Duijff 2016). Thanks to the efforts of the so-called Frisian Movement1, in 1879 standardized orthographic rules were published, and it was not until after the Second World War that these spelling rules were officially adopted – in a slightly modified form – by the Province of Fryslân. So, the compilers of the wordlist had unambiguous spelling rules, and they could build on a spelling tradition of nearly 140 years. Anyone writing in Frisian can fall back on these rules. Nevertheless, only a minor part of the Frisians write in the language. The number of Frisian speakers able to write in Frisian well is put at 14.5% (Taalatlas 2015).2 The use of written Frisian is largely confined to the following domains: Frisian culture Particularly since the influence of Romanticism in the 19th century, Frisian has developed as a literary language. A range of genres are represented in Frisian literature, especially drama (Oldenhof 2006, Poortinga 1940), folk and pop music (Oosterhaven 2005, 2013, 2014), and poetry (Wadman 1949, Bruinja and Hilarides 2004). Media Frisian appears in various written media. In the mainstream media, such as the two provincial newspapers, we find family announcements, opinion pieces, and editorials published in Frisian. Frisian culture is almost the sole subject matter in the latter. A range of texts in Frisian are also published on the Internet. A recent study (Jongbloed-Faber 2014) has shown that Dutch predominates among Frisian speakers in social media, but that half of young Frisians do use Frisian (mainly phonetically spelt, non-standardized), although not consistently. Public administration and jurisprudence Although Dutch is the predominant written language in public administration, the provincial government in particular strives to maximize its use of Frisian. Thus the minutes of Provincial Council meetings are for the most part written in Frisian, and advertisements and announcements from the Province are often in Frisian. Many municipal authorities have developed policy on the use of Frisian, but here too Dutch is predominant in practice. In fact, within the legal domain, Frisian is only written on an incidental basis by notaries. In public administration and jurisprudence, however, there are terminology resources in the form of a glossary for official communications (De Haan 1989), models for notaries (Duijff 2017), and a legal dictionary (FRD 2000a). Religion The Bible, psalms, songs, and church forms are available in Frisian, but compared with their Dutch counterparts, they are little used in religious gatherings (Popkema 2014). Education Textbooks and teaching resources are available for use in all sectors where education in Frisian is compulsory. There are also resources for sectors that do not have that requirement. Nationally organized written exams are available for three levels of secondary education (Examenblad). For reading instruction, there are books written originally in Frisian as well as translations from other languages. After the Second World War in particular, pedagogical arguments led to a push to expand teaching in Frisian. Teaching hours were extended and plans were drawn up to make Frisian the sole language of instruction in the first years of primary schooling. These bilingual (Frisian and Dutch) school programmes were later discontinued (Zondag 2011). Some schools now work with a trilingual programme in English, Frisian and Dutch (Trijetalige skoalle 2007).We can cite the social position of Frisian, pressure from Dutch, minimal support of the national Dutch central state, and insufficient education in the language as reasons for the limited mastery of written Frisian. Indifference on the part of ordinary Frisians towards their mother tongue may also play a role. A survey of municipal officials in Heerenveen, for example, revealed that the majority of the Frisian speakers among them did not have a positive attitude towards the language, although the attitude among Frisian speakers in that municipality tended to be more positive than among Dutch speakers (Gorter 1983: 67-76, 164-165, 1993: 164-165). This indifference is also reflected in educational practice, with the quality of education in Frisian being reliant thus far on the intrinsic motivation of the teacher (Zondag 2011). Many Frisians have had little or no education in Frisian, and are therefore more or less illiterate in their own language. If they want to write in Frisian, they frequently do not have the Frisian vocabulary and idiomatic expressions at their disposal to do so, and they are often uncertain about the spelling. Instead, ever since Dutch was made a compulsory school subject in 1901, they have been trained to express themselves in writing in Dutch. Of course, Frisians are Dutch people too, and are part not just of Frisian culture but also of Dutch culture, where written Dutch predominates. Given this situation, only a minority of the Frisians are motivated to write in their mother tongue. All this could give the impression that Frisian is in decline. Gorter (1982), however, reports that although Frisian is less vital than Dutch, it enjoys a greater vitality than Dutch regional vernaculars. In his view, Frisian mainly lacks economic status and institutional support, a conclusion also drawn by Ytsma et al. (1994: 75-76). Since then, however, the framework has been put in place for the use of Frisian in education and public administration, and about half of the inhabitants of the Province of Fryslân are continuing to pass the language on to their children (Taalatlas 2015). Also significant seems to be the positive attitude towards Frisian among young Frisian speakers on social media (Jongbloed-Faber 2014: 38). For example, more than 10 percent of the tweets of young Frisian speakers are in Frisian, while 65 percent of them are in Dutch. A majority of the young Frisians uses the majority language Dutch. However, on the annual ‘twitter day’ more than 50 percent of the tweets are in Frisian. These figures are suggestive of the language attitude of the Frisians: They have a positive attitude, but writing in their mother tongue is not common. Of course, a lot of the twitter partners are native speakers of Dutch, and Frisians are used to speaking Dutch with them. Why should they write Frisian with them? The provincial government, which is responsible for language policy, and the Frisian Movement in a broad sense, actively promote the preservation of Frisian, in particular by encouraging the use of Frisian in education, public administration, media, and culture (Bestuursafspraak 2013). The preferred vocabulary list (Taalweb 2015) and the ONFW are a result of that policy and, with support from the Province of Fryslân, they have been developed and made available online free of charge. It is important for dictionary makers and compilers of other products of language documentation to be aware, as Kroskrity (2009, 2015) argues, of the language ideology of the users of an endangered or lesser-used language. They have to reconcile the discrepancy between the ideology of the language users and that of the product developers. In the case of the ONFW, it might be an advantage that the lexicographic staff of the Fryske Akademy only consists of native speakers of Frisian. 2. The role of dictionaries in language preservation The question remains whether a dictionary can help to preserve a language. This does appear to be the case in southern Africa, where considerable effort has gone into producing lexicographic descriptions of indigenous languages following the demise of colonialism. These dictionaries have been shown to have a tangible impact on the use of those languages. The dictionaries provide the necessary terminological expansion and serve to enhance the status of the indigenous languages, resulting in an increase in the conscious use of those languages in domains such as education, the media (especially advertising) and local administration (Nyota and Mapara 2007). These African dictionaries (both printed versions and those online or on cell phones) appear to be a successful implementation of a language policy that supports the development and promotion of indigenous languages (Klein 2009: 433, 2010: 1494-1495). Klein does, however, question the likelihood of success if these dictionaries are not made available free of charge. Thanks to their prestige, dictionaries have also played a key role in preserving and revitalizing endangered languages in America and the Pacific (Mosel 2011: 339-340, 353, Ogilvie 2010: 34-41, 2011: 391-402). Ogilvie also notes that survival chances ultimately depend on a positive attitude to the language and a willingness among parents to pass on the language. Attitude towards language also plays a role in the use of purisms in languages that contain many loan words, often minority languages. Purisms that are included in dictionaries become part of the language, whereas loan words that are not included seem to disappear (Hadebe 2007, Van der Kuip 2010). Once again, however, it should be said that a positive language attitude is decisive for the use or otherwise of so-called ‘pure’ forms (Van der Sijs 1999, Van der Kuip 2010). Thus, scepticism about the influence of dictionaries on usage is not without foundation. Bartels (2010: 1461) holds the view that a dictionary is not of itself able to revitalize or preserve a minority language. The survival chances of Frisian, and the role the new dictionary might play are not matters we can comment on now. What we do know for certain, however, is that the dictionary has to be in digital form. Kornai (2013) has calculated that 95 percent of languages are threatened by digital death. For smaller or minority languages in particular, it is essential to have digital language resources (see also Popkema 2010). In the digital age, the reality for a digital society seems to be that if it’s not on the web and can’t be downloaded, it is doomed to vanish. 3. One dictionary, multiple user groups We have seen what the Frisian language context is, and what opportunities there are for dictionaries in supporting minority languages; we will now discuss the dictionary itself. The ONFW is primarily a production dictionary which takes modern general standard Dutch as its source language and the standard Frisian equivalent as its target language. The emphasis is on the meaning and use of words and phrases, but grammatical information is also provided. The dictionary is designed in such a way that users have optimum access via the Internet. It will be constantly updated and, as befits an online dictionary, will remain a work in progress. The ONFW will also offer users opportunities for interaction. The main target group for the ONFW are active users wanting to translate from Dutch (the source language) into Frisian (the target language), and to produce texts in Frisian. A second target group comprises passive users wishing to learn more about Frisian. Passive users may also include those with a purely linguistic interest. Given the Frisian language situation, the active-user group (speakers of Dutch) needs to be expanded to include speakers of Frisian. The fact that a Dutch-Frisian production dictionary is intended for Dutch speakers goes without saying, but that it also, and especially, targets Frisian speakers deserves further explanation. In Section 1, we observed that Dutch as the majority language exerts immense pressure on Frisian, and that education in Frisian is far from optimal. As a consequence, many Frisian speakers pepper their language with Dutch words, forms and structures, and they write Dutch more often, and better, than they do Frisian. Further, until quite recently there was no clearly preferred language form for Frisian. Many Frisians therefore lack confidence when writing their own language, which can be seen as an undesirable situation in, for example, public administration and education (Hiemstra 1999: 254-255). In practice, written standard Frisian is a language that the average Frisian speaker has not mastered. We therefore share Popkema’s (2010: 89) view that for the purposes of text production, Frisian speakers are best served by a dictionary that has Dutch as the source language, and Frisian as the target language.3 The fact that we are making a single production dictionary for more than one user group has everything to do with the position of Frisian as a minority language. Moreover, minority languages often lack the resources to make a separate dictionary for each and every user group. Whereas printed multifunctional or hybrid dictionaries can be problematical when it comes to design, this need no longer be the case in the digital age. A growing number of online dictionaries are of a hybrid nature, because they are no longer subject to the technical and financial constraints of printed dictionaries (Schmitz 2013: 1017). Clearly, the design of a dictionary is dependent on the intended users. For the ONFW, these are first and foremost active users wishing to write in Frisian. This group is better served by an elucidation of how the Frisian word stem can, and cannot, be used, than by a lengthy list of Frisian equivalents of transparent compounds. In an active dictionary, the emphasis is therefore more on the content of the dictionary articles, the micro-structure, than on the build-up of the lemma list, the macro-structure (Dykstra 1989: 137, Lew 2016: 291, Visser 1987: 89-92). Greater attention to word stems does not mean that compound words are neglected. Non-transparent compounds and derivations do of course need to be presented together with an equivalent, but common transparent compounds and derivations that lack a predictable one-to-one translation in the target language will also have to be included as lemmas. For the Frisian-English dictionary (FRD 2000b), Dykstra (1989: 143) gives the examples hûneútstalling, hûnegeblaf, hûnespan, hûnekoer, hûneras, for which the English equivalents are either a compound or a phrase: dog show, barking of dogs, team of dogs/dog team, dog basket, breed of dogs. For the Frisian equivalents of the Dutch entries, it is important not only to show by way of examples, collocations, structures, and expressions how the word can be used, but also where necessary to provide these equivalents with labels showing use restrictions (see Duval 2008, Svensén 2009: 276ff). The following example from Frisian journalistic practice demonstrates how essential this is: the reinforcing adverb yngreven (‘thoroughly, in heart and soul’), which is only used in a limited number of collocations, is regularly bandied about on radio and television as the equivalent of the non-context-bound Dutch phrase door en door (‘thoroughly, through and through’). With the exception of technical and scientific terms, in interlingual equivalence these words are seldom interchangeable or fully semantically identical in all contexts (Adamska-Sałaciak 2013: 337-339). Labels or abbreviated definitions are also indispensable if the different meanings of a word in the source language have different equivalents in the target language. An example is the Dutch noun roos: in the sense of ‘flower’, the Frisian equivalent is roas; in the sense of ‘dandruff’ it is dúst. Another example is the Frisian noun kras, which cannot be translated by one and the same word in English in all its senses: ‘(..) 1. [movement] scratch 2. [result] scratch 3. [sound] scrape’ (Dykstra 1989: 148). Alongside active users, the ONFW is also intended for passive users, i.e. speakers of Frisian and other languages who would like to know more about Frisian. Although a Frisian-Dutch dictionary is not currently feasible, we believe we can still serve this user group with our Dutch-Frisian dictionary. As stated earlier, compiling a multifunctional dictionary need not be a problem if it is produced in digital form. Users do not need an alphabetical list of Frisian lemmas, but can simply enter a Frisian word or form in the user interface. A few clicks will take them to the phonological or grammatical information they are looking for. For the time being, however, the ONFW will mainly be available for active use. Because the ONFW is intended first and foremost for those wanting to write in Frisian, presenting phonological and grammatical information is not our highest priority, although that information is partly available in the preferred vocabulary database (Taalweb 2015). Following expansion of that database and linkage to the dictionary database, the ONFW will eventually be able to grow into the multifunctional dictionary that we envisage. 4. Data selection from a minority language For Dutch, the source language of the ONFW, we can draw on the corpus of the Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek (ANW). This is a dictionary of contemporary standard Dutch in the Netherlands and Flanders that describes the Dutch vocabulary from 1970 onwards (Schoonheim and Tempelaars 2010: 718). As far as Frisian, the target language of the ONFW, is concerned, we have to contend with the fact that it is not comparable to Dutch. Relatively few people write in Frisian and they do not do so across all domains. As a result, many terms will not occur in the Frisian language database’s corpus of contemporary written Frisian. Speakers of Frisian fill in these lexical gaps with loan words from Dutch and English (Sijens 2004). This raises several questions that confront lexicographers with regard to almost all minority languages. Which dialect forms are preferred in the dictionary where no standard exists? Should loan words from the majority language that are widespread in the spoken language be replaced in the dictionary by purisms, and hence be prescribed, or should they be accepted as they are? Mosel (2011: 340), who studies and describes endangered languages that do not have a written tradition, adopts a fairly clear position on dialect selection: for dictionaries of these languages she chooses one dialect over another. This choice is made on the basis of factors such as the viability, larger reach, and greater distribution of the dialect in question. She is of course aware that these choices may have a disastrous effect on other dialects. The situation is slightly different for Frisian as a written language. One hundred years ago, Hof (1914: 16ff) had already noted the existence of a written standard language that had developed over the years from the two larger dialects, Clay Frisian and Woodland Frisian, largely to the exclusion of the smaller, more divergent dialects – the North Quarter and Southwest Quarter dialects. We see this situation reflected in dictionaries. Refer to the Table 1 with several dialect forms from Hof (1933). The ones in bold are given preference in the dictionaries. Table 1: Examples of lexical variants across Frisian dialects (after Hof 1993) Clay Frisian  Woodland Frisian  North Quarter dialect  Southwest Quarter dialect  gloss  achter  achter  achter  efter, echter  ‘after, behind’  bûter  bûter  buotter  buter  ‘butter’  each  eech  êch  eech  ‘eye’  heel  hiel, heul  heel  heel  ‘whole’  hij  hy, hij  hij  hij  ‘he’  rom  rûm  rûm  rom  ‘spacious, wide’  woartel  woartel, wjartel  woartel  wörtel  ‘root, carrot’  Clay Frisian  Woodland Frisian  North Quarter dialect  Southwest Quarter dialect  gloss  achter  achter  achter  efter, echter  ‘after, behind’  bûter  bûter  buotter  buter  ‘butter’  each  eech  êch  eech  ‘eye’  heel  hiel, heul  heel  heel  ‘whole’  hij  hy, hij  hij  hij  ‘he’  rom  rûm  rûm  rom  ‘spacious, wide’  woartel  woartel, wjartel  woartel  wörtel  ‘root, carrot’  Table 1: Examples of lexical variants across Frisian dialects (after Hof 1993) Clay Frisian  Woodland Frisian  North Quarter dialect  Southwest Quarter dialect  gloss  achter  achter  achter  efter, echter  ‘after, behind’  bûter  bûter  buotter  buter  ‘butter’  each  eech  êch  eech  ‘eye’  heel  hiel, heul  heel  heel  ‘whole’  hij  hy, hij  hij  hij  ‘he’  rom  rûm  rûm  rom  ‘spacious, wide’  woartel  woartel, wjartel  woartel  wörtel  ‘root, carrot’  Clay Frisian  Woodland Frisian  North Quarter dialect  Southwest Quarter dialect  gloss  achter  achter  achter  efter, echter  ‘after, behind’  bûter  bûter  buotter  buter  ‘butter’  each  eech  êch  eech  ‘eye’  heel  hiel, heul  heel  heel  ‘whole’  hij  hy, hij  hij  hij  ‘he’  rom  rûm  rûm  rom  ‘spacious, wide’  woartel  woartel, wjartel  woartel  wörtel  ‘root, carrot’  According to Hof (1914: 16ff), Frisian writers from the 17th to the early 19th centuries employed a fairly consistent language choice, which later writers subsequently modelled themselves on, more so than on their own dialect. Even then, written Standard Frisian had fairly fixed forms and, as a blend of the two largest indigenous dialects,4 had become a mainly written variety in its own right: one that was hardly spoken anywhere in that exact form. We therefore assume that people who write Frisian are aware they are using a written, supraregional language, and are not writing in their own dialect, just as people who write Dutch know that they are writing in a language, Algemeen Nederlands (Standard Dutch), that is only spoken by a minority (Van der Woude 1956: 49, Tamminga 1966: 475). This Frisian written language is recorded in dictionaries from the 20th century. However, these dictionaries often gave more than one dialect form of a word, with the Clay Frisian form usually listed first (Van der Veen 1988: 125). In practice, this form of presentation functioned implicitly as an indication of a standard (Ibid.,121). While linguists and educationalists endlessly discussed the language norm, a standard in the above sense had already been operating for a century (Hiemstra 1999, Duijff 2010). With the necessary adjustments, that standard has now been consolidated and at the same time fine-tuned in the preferred vocabulary (Taalweb 2015, Duijff 2016), which has been officially adopted in a decision by the provincial government. One hundred years after Hof’s observation that a more or less standardized written language existed, we would expect, based on Mosel (2011), that the excluded Frisian dialects would have all but disappeared. It hasn’t come to that, although there are indications that the use of the written standard in education has caused typical forms such as the North Quarter buosse (‘pocket’) and sepe (‘soap’) to be gradually replaced by the standard forms bûse and sjippe (Boelens and Ytsma 1989: 14). Whether this dialect levelling will continue over time is not relevant for the ONFW, which is based on the standard written language developed through a tradition going back many years. An as yet unresolved issue is that of the choice between loan words and purisms. For Zgusta (1971: 87) and Mosel (2011: 343), the answer is clear-cut. Loan words are part of a language and therefore deserve their place in the dictionary; otherwise the dictionary would not represent the living language as it is used. In English, for instance, this does not seem to be a problem (see Durkin 2014). English is a strong language, which can process the inclusion of loan words without any problems. However, a weak, and originally predominantly agrarian language such as Frisian, which consequently has lexical gaps in many domains and depends on borrowing from or via the dominant language, Dutch (Visser 2000, Sijens 2004, Popkema 2010), can start to increasingly grow closer to the Dutch language and begin to resemble a dialect of Dutch. It is understandable that lexicographers of minority languages are inclined to ignore loan words in the colloquial language and promote purisms by including them in their dictionaries (see, for example, Hijmans 1999, Toorians 1999 for Celtic languages). Including loan words is also understandable for languages that are virtually no longer spoken. The few surviving speakers would not identify with an artificially created written language and the dictionary designed to prevent the language from dying out would fail to achieve its objective. Frisian may be a weak language, but is not an endangered language at present. As we saw in Section 1, it can still be considered quite vital and the elimination of loan words and loan translations and the promotion of purisms have sometimes had an impact. See Table 2 for examples are taken from Tamminga (1966) and Van der Kuip (2010). Table 2: Purisms in Frisian Dutch word  Frisian loan or calque  Frisian purism  gloss  agenda  agenda, aginda  wurklist  ‘agenda’  geboorte  geboarte  berte  ‘birth’  getuige  getuge  tsjûge  ‘witness’  penningmeester  penningmeester, pinningmaster  ponghâlder, skathâlder  ‘treasurer’  vaderland  faderlân  heitelân  ‘fatherland’  vergadering  fergadering, fergearringe  gearkomste  ‘meeting’  weerbericht  waarbericht  waarberjocht  ‘weather report’  Dutch word  Frisian loan or calque  Frisian purism  gloss  agenda  agenda, aginda  wurklist  ‘agenda’  geboorte  geboarte  berte  ‘birth’  getuige  getuge  tsjûge  ‘witness’  penningmeester  penningmeester, pinningmaster  ponghâlder, skathâlder  ‘treasurer’  vaderland  faderlân  heitelân  ‘fatherland’  vergadering  fergadering, fergearringe  gearkomste  ‘meeting’  weerbericht  waarbericht  waarberjocht  ‘weather report’  Table 2: Purisms in Frisian Dutch word  Frisian loan or calque  Frisian purism  gloss  agenda  agenda, aginda  wurklist  ‘agenda’  geboorte  geboarte  berte  ‘birth’  getuige  getuge  tsjûge  ‘witness’  penningmeester  penningmeester, pinningmaster  ponghâlder, skathâlder  ‘treasurer’  vaderland  faderlân  heitelân  ‘fatherland’  vergadering  fergadering, fergearringe  gearkomste  ‘meeting’  weerbericht  waarbericht  waarberjocht  ‘weather report’  Dutch word  Frisian loan or calque  Frisian purism  gloss  agenda  agenda, aginda  wurklist  ‘agenda’  geboorte  geboarte  berte  ‘birth’  getuige  getuge  tsjûge  ‘witness’  penningmeester  penningmeester, pinningmaster  ponghâlder, skathâlder  ‘treasurer’  vaderland  faderlân  heitelân  ‘fatherland’  vergadering  fergadering, fergearringe  gearkomste  ‘meeting’  weerbericht  waarbericht  waarberjocht  ‘weather report’  A positive attitude towards the language appears to play a decisive role in the use of purisms. In practice, people who write in Frisian are willing to learn it, and are intrinsically motivated to write it. What kind of Frisian they want to write, has never been investigated. They just use the language offered in language tools and practiced in education. So, we assume that people who write in Frisian do have a positive attitude and are keen to write the language well. Many people who write in Frisian therefore try to avoid (Dutch) loan words or forms that resemble Dutch5 (Van der Woude 1960: 21, Breuker 1993: 275). There are of course creative writers who wish to add local or personal colour to their work and who like to use Dutch loan words from the vernacular. Publishers have made exceptions for them, especially at the end of last century (Hiemstra 1999: 257). The ONFW, however, is not compiled with only this small group in mind but, with the support of the provincial government’s language policy, is intended for all those wishing or needing to write in Standard Frisian. Nevertheless, it could be useful to include the most frequent and more or less established forms, and to offer the loan word as well as the purism in the dictionary (see e.g. Schroten 1999 for Catalan). This method entails that a description of the conventional language use is given (description), while simultaneously showing which forms are desirable (prescription). In the literature, the combination of description and prescription is called proscription (Bergenholtz and Gouws 2010). Users of the dictionary can then decide for themselves whether to use a Frisian colloquial language in which Dutch is clearly recognizable, or a Frisian language that is mostly based on indigenous words and constructions. 5. Dictionary-writing system and user interface Not only are we using the Dutch data in the corpus that serves as basis for the ANW, but we are also making use, in modified form, of the ANW’s dictionary writing system (lexicographical workstation and editor). The ANW is a monolingual online dictionary that describes written standard Dutch from 1970 onwards (for details, see Moerdijk et al. 2008, Niestadt 2009, Schoonheim and Tempelaars 2010, Tiberius and Niestadt 2010). The ONFW, on the other hand, is a bilingual production dictionary. It therefore requires a different feature, namely the translation of material from the source language, Dutch, into the target language, Frisian. The ONFW takes as its starting point the ANW’s editorial schema, which we will only partially fill in for the source language Dutch. It is not necessary for a production dictionary to provide phonological and grammatical information for lemmas in the source language; an indication of the part of speech will suffice. As stated in section 3, however, labelling or compact definitions are indispensable for sub-senses. We also take the liberty of restricting or expanding the number of lemmas, example sentences, collocations, fixed expressions, proverbs, derivations, and compounds. The data is entered in an XML format that meets a specific XML schema, stored in a MySQL database with metadata (see Tiberius and Schoonheim 2016: 22-24). In each field containing an element from the source language, a field will be added with an equivalent in the target language and one or more additional fields where there are synonymous equivalents in the target language. In addition, fields with phonological and grammatical information can be filled in for the equivalents in the target language (Figure 1). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide The Dictionary Writing System with the Dutch entry binnen (‘inside’), with translations binnen and yn (‘in’). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide The Dictionary Writing System with the Dutch entry binnen (‘inside’), with translations binnen and yn (‘in’). We would love to be able to say: ‘Welcome to the lexicographical garden of Eden’, were it not for the complication of the recent government-imposed cuts to the Dutch Language Institute (IvdNT), which has forced the ANW editors to reduce their plans. For the ANW, this means among other things that the innovative onomasiological search is only implemented for nouns and no longer for adjectives and verbs (Colman 2016: 153). For the editors of the ONFW, it means having to extract the adjectives and verbs from the ANW corpus ourselves with the help of the Sketch Engine suite. If that is the case, then we ourselves will pluck the fruit from the tree, to continue the above metaphor. The modified ANW dictionary-writing system will also be available for other bilingual dictionaries that have Dutch as the source language. For example, Henk Bloemhoff, a guest researcher at the Fryske Akademy, is working on a production dictionary for Stellingwerfs, a Low Saxon language variety spoken in the southeast of the Province of Fryslân and neighbouring parts of the Provinces of Overijssel and Drenthe. How is the ONFW being made accessible to Internet users? In line with the modified ANW dictionary-writing system, the Fryske Akademy has developed an interface that is intended for both user groups. For active users, who translate from Dutch into Frisian and who produce texts in Frisian, the interface consists of a screen showing the Dutch lemma and all the accompanying information, plus the associated Frisian equivalents. Where necessary, to help users who search for information in larger articles, clues in the form of labels are provided for the sub-senses (Figure 2). Different typography or colours are used to help users find and remember collocations and fixed expressions. Both methods are shown to be highly effective in practice (Dziemianko 2014, 2015, Lew 2016). Figure 2. View largeDownload slide The ONFW interface with the Dutch entry braam (‘blackberry and ‘burr’), with the translations toarnbei (‘blackberry’) and braam (‘burr’). Figure 2. View largeDownload slide The ONFW interface with the Dutch entry braam (‘blackberry and ‘burr’), with the translations toarnbei (‘blackberry’) and braam (‘burr’). Passive users, wanting to learn more about Frisian, will work with the same interface. The Frisian words can be called up throughout the dictionary: a click on a Frisian word will take users to a menu where they can select from phonological and grammatical information. Another click takes them to a pop-up screen with the information they have requested. 6. Editing, publishing, and user involvement The ONFW will appear online in stages (Van der Kuip and Sijens 2014). In this respect, our approach is not essentially different from that of the ANW (see Tiberius and Schoonheim 2016: 25-26). The user’s role is more important for the ONFW than for the ANW. Active user involvement in an online dictionary is vitally important for a minority language because of the many lexical gaps. User involvement can take different forms. Abel and Meyer (2013: 180, 2016) make a distinction between direct, indirect, and accessory user contributions (‘direkte, indirekte’ and ‘begleitende Nutzerbeteiligung’). Direct contribution applies to collaborative dictionaries, where users themselves write and upload lemmas, and semi-collaborative dictionaries, where quality control is still carried out by an editorial team trained in lexicography (see also Melchior 2012: 352-353). Indirect contribution refers to the giving and requesting of feedback on dictionary content, while accessory contribution involves contributions to blogs, forums, or the language games that some dictionaries offer (Abel and Meyer 2013: 189, 2016: 273). Lew (2014: 10) makes a three-fold distinction between content that is generated almost entirely by users, user-generated content combined with professional content (also known as semi-collaborative), and professional content, supplemented and enriched by user content. As stated above, we regard collaboration with users as very important. However, the ONFW cannot be called a collaborative or semi-collaborative dictionary in the strict sense outlined above. That’s because, to use Abel and Meyer’s terminology, the contribution from our users is of both an indirect and accessory nature. In Lew’s (2014) terms, the ONFW can be characterized as a dictionary whose content is determined by professionals, supplemented or enriched by content supplied by users. We see various opportunities for involving users in the dictionary. They could be approached through social media to make suggestions for Frisian equivalents that are still missing. Surveys with targeted questions about terminology could be sent to a dedicated group of professional translators and writers. And users could open a mailbox on the user interface that allows them to comment on and approve the dictionary content (Duijff et al. 2016). Although not all user contributions will be equally useful, they will always be deserving of feedback. To prevent disappointment or resentment, editorial decisions should be reported to users, outlining the reasons (Melchior 2014: 45). No doubt, positive feedback will encourage users to continue to contribute their suggestions and comments. 7. Concluding remarks Although the ONFW has a multifunctional purpose, it is primarily intended for speakers of Frisian to enable them to produce texts in Frisian. In this article, we have outlined the language situation in the Dutch Province of Fryslân. We have shown that Frisian contains many loan words as a result of pressure from the dominant Dutch, and that it has many lexical gaps because of the limited number of written domains in which it is used. We have also explained that many people have an imperfect command of written Frisian, as opposed to Dutch, because of the lack of a social need for it and the absence of quality education. For these reasons, we have chosen Dutch as the source language, since most people have a better command of written Dutch than of Frisian, the target language. This is also why the ONFW presents many possible Frisian usages in the form of example sentences, collocations, and fixed expressions, and why so many alternatives are given for Dutch loan words. Footnotes 1 The Frisian Movement, which comprises individuals and institutes, was founded in the first half of the 19th century, and was based on the Romantic ideas. 2 This represents an increase compared with 2011, when 12.1 percent of those surveyed reported being able to write in Frisian well or very well. In this questionnaire, as in others, there was only a question about ‘writing in Frisian’, not about specific skills like fluency and control of the orthography. 3 This was already a reality one hundred years ago. At that time, however, some language advocates still rejected the notion of a Dutch-Frisian dictionary. In response to the imminent publication of the FRD (1918), Hof made the following ironic comment about its users: ‘It Nederlânsk hat ús sa yn ’e macht, en wy kenne as ’t knypt sa’n bytsje Frysk, det wy moatte allegedurigen neisjên kinne hwet it Fryske wird is for ’t Nederlânsk dat him yn ús brein foarmet as wy tinke. Oars kinne wy net Frysk skriuwe’ (Hof 1916: 317). [‘Dutch has us so much in its sway, and when push comes to shove we know so little Frisian, that we have to constantly be able to check what the Frisian word is for the Dutch that forms in our brain when we think. Otherwise we can’t write in Frisian.’] 4 For instance, the dialects have different forms for the pronoun ‘we’, but in the standard written language only one of these is attested, one that is most distant from the Dutch equivalent. Another example is the variation found in the verb ‘to have’. Only one form, hawwe, is accepted in the norm. The dialectal alternatives hewwe, ha, hè, hebbe and habbe are ignored in the standard. 5 Examples are the Frisian dialect forms achter (‘after, behind’) and heel (‘whole’). These are exactly the same as the Dutch equivalents. In this case, dictionaries display a preference for the divergent dialectal forms efter and hiel, which are only spoken in a small area (see Table 1). References A. Dictionaries Duijff P. 2000. Juridisch Woordenboek Nederlands-Fries, met een index Fries-Nederlands . Groningen / Leeuwarden: Martinus Nijhoff / Fryske Akademy. [Legal Dictionary Dutch-Frisian, with an Index Frisian-Dutch] (FRD 2000a) Dykstra A. 2000. Frysk-Ingelsk wurdboek / Frisian-English Dictionary, with a corresponding English-Frisian word list . Leeuwarden: Afûk / Fryske Akademy. (FRD 2000b) Schoonheim T. (ed. in chief). Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek . Leiden: Instituut voor de Nederlandse Taal. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://anw.ivdnt.org. [General Dutch Dictionary] (ANW) Spoelstra J., Post J., Hut A.. 2007. Prisma woordenboek Fries, Fries-Nederlands / Nederlands-Fries. Utrecht: Uitgeverij Het Spectrum (Second edition 2016, also available as app: https://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/Woordenboek-Fries-Prisma/id1150361520?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D4). [Prisma Dictionary Frisian, Frisian-Dutch / Dutch-Frisian] (FRD 2007) Visser W. 1985. Frysk Wurdboek. Nederlânsk-Frysk . Leeuwarden: A.J. Osinga Uitgeverij. [Frisian Dictionary. Dutch-Frisian] (FRD 1985) Wumkes G.A., de Vries A.. 1918. Nederlandsch-Friesch Woordenboek . Sneek: A.J. Osinga. [Dutch-Frisian Dictionary] (FRD 1918) B. Other literature Abel A., Meyer C.M.. 2013. ‘The Dynamics Outside the Paper: User Contributions to Online Dictionaries’ In Kosem I., Kallas J., Gantar P., Krek S., Langemets M., Tuulik M. (eds), Electronic lexicography in the 21st century: thinking outside the paper. Proceedings of the eLex 2013 conference , 17– 19 October 2013, Tallinn, Estonia. Ljubljana / Tallinn: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovene Studies / Eesti Keele Instituut, 179-194. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://eki.ee/elex2013/proceedings/eLex2013_13_Abel+Meyer.pdf. Abel A., Meyer C.M.. 2016. ‘Nutzerbeteiligung.’ In Klosa A., Müller-Spitzer C. (eds), Internetlexikographie . Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 249– 290. Adamska-Sałaciak A. 2013. ‘Equivalence, Synonymy, and Sameness of Meaning in a Bilingual Dictionary.’ International Journal of Lexicography  26. 3: 329– 345. Århammar N. 1990. ‘Friesische Lexicographie’ In Hausmann F.J., Reichmann O., Wiegand H.E., Zgusta L. (eds), Wörterbücher/Dictionaries/Dictionnaires, Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexicographie/An international Encyclopedia of Lexicography/Encyclopédie internationale de lexicographie . Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2022– 2036. [Frisian Lexicography] Bartels H. 2010. ‘The German-Lower Sorbian Online Dictionary’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 1450– 1462. Bestuursafspraak. 2013. Bestuursafspraak Friese taal en cultuur 2013-2018. ’s-Gravenhage / Leeuwarden: Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties / Provincie Fryslân. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://www.fryslan.frl/3413/friese-taal. [Administrative Agreement Frisian Language and Culture] Bergenholtz H., Gouws R.H.. 2010. ‘A Functional Approach to the Choice between Descriptive, Prescriptive and Proscriptive Lexicography.’ Lexikos  20: 26– 51. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Boelens K., Ytsma J.. 1989. ‘Brekking en idioom by Dongeradielster tsieners’ In Riemersma A.M.J., Riemersma T., Visser W. (eds), Frysk & Vrije Universiteit (1949-1989) . Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 9– 19. [Breaking and Idiom by Dongeradeel Teenagers] Breuker P. 1993. Noarmaspekten fan it hjoeddeiske Frysk. Ph.D. Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. [Aspects of Norm of Contemporary Frisian] Breuker P. 2003. ‘Ferantwurding en útwurking fan noarmaspekten yn it Hânwurdboek I-II en yn it WFT.’ Us Wurk 52: 19-76. [Justification and Elaboration of Aspects of Norm in the Hânwurdboek I-II and in the WFT] Bruinja T., Hilarides H.J. (eds). 2004. Droom in blauwe regenjas: een keuze uit de nieuwe Friese poëzie sinds 1990 . Amsterdam / Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Contact; Leeuwarden: Uitgeverij Bornmeer. [Dream in Blue Raincoat: a Collection of the New Frisian Poetry since 1990] Colman L. 2016. ‘ Sustainable Lexicography: Where to Go from Here with the ANW (Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek, An Online General Language Dictionary of Contemporary Dutch)?’ International Journal of Lexicography  29. 2: 139– 155. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Duijff P. 2010. ‘The Language Norm in a Century of Frisian Dictionaries.’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 1471– 1484. Duijff P. 2016. ‘Towards Modern Standard Frisian’ In Tieken-Boon van Ostade I., Percy C. (eds). Prescription and Tradition in Language. Establishing Standards across Time and Space . Bristol / Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, 532– 549. Duijff P. 2017. Friestalige modellen voor de rechtspraktijk. Accessed on 17 January 2018. https://www.fryske-akademy.nl/nl/kennis-en-samenleving/friese-spelling-en-taalhulp/friestalige-modellen-voor-de-rechtspraktijk. [Frisian-language Models for the benefit of the Legal Practice] Duijff P., van der Kuip F., Sijens H., Visser W.. 2016. ‘User Contributions in the Online Dutch-Frisian Dictionary.’ Meeting Cost Action ENeL, Working Group 3 ‘Innovative e-Dictionaries’. Barcelona 31-03. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://www.elexicography.eu/working-groups/working-group-3/wg3-meetings/wg3-barcelona-2016/. Durkin Ph. 2014. Borrowed Words. A History of Loanwords in English . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Duval A. 2008. ‘Equivalence in Bilingual Dictionaries.’ In Fontenelle T. (ed.), Practical Lexicography. A Reader . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 273– 282. Dykstra A. 1989. ‘Nei in Frysk/Ingelsk wurdboek.’ It Beaken  51: 135– 155. [Towards a Frisian-English Dictionary] Dykstra A., Duijff P., van der Kuip F., Sijens H. (eds). 2015. Taalweb Frysk . Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy. Accessed on 17 January 2018. https://taalweb.frl. [Language Web Frisian] (Taalweb 2015). Dziemianko A. 2014. ‘ On the Presentation and Placement of Collocations in Monolingual English Learners’ Dictionaries: Insights into Encoding and Retention.’ International Journal of Lexicography  27. 3: 259– 279. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Dziemianko A. 2015. ‘Colours in Online Dictionaries: A Case of Functional Labels.’ International Journal of Lexicography  28. 1: 27– 61. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Examenblad. Accessed on 17 January 2018. https://www.examenblad.nl. [Archive of Exams in the Dutch Secundary School] Gorter D. 1982. ‘De libbenskrêft fan it Frysk: in oanset ta analyze.’ Philologia Frisica  9, 91– 105. [The Vitality of Frisian: a Draft of an Analysis] Gorter D. 1983. De taalsituaasje yn de gemeente It Hearrenfean. (In ûndersyk nei it hâlden en dragen foar it Frysk oer fan de befolking) . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. [The Language Situation in the Municipality It Hearrenfean. An Investigation into the Frisian Language Attitude of the Inhabitants] Gorter D. 1993. Taal van klanten en klerken. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam. [Language of Clients and Clerks] de Haan R. 1989. Wurdlist foar it offisjele ferkear  Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy (2nd ed.). [Wordlist of Official Jargon] Hadebe S. 2007. ‘Language Planning and Monolingual Dictionaries: With Special Reference to Ndebele.’ Lexikos  17: 292– 306. Hiemstra S. 1999. ‘De taalnoarm.’ In Dykstra A., Bremmer R. Jr., In skiednis fan ’e Fryske taalkunde . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy, 242– 279. [The Language Standard] Hof J.J. 1914. Is der in Fryske tael ? Ljouwert: R. van der Velde. [Does a Frisian Language Really Exist?] Hof J.J. 1916. ‘In “Nederlandsch-Friesch Woordenboek”.’ Fryslân. Algemien Frysk wykblêd  1: 317– 318. [A Dutch-Frisian Dictionary] Hof J.J. 1933. Friesche dialectgeographie . ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. [Frisian Dialect Geography] Hof J.J. 1941. Fjirtich jier taelstriid. Tredde diel . Dokkum: Fa. J. Kamminga. [Forty Years of Linguistic Conflict] Hijmans A. 1999. ‘‘Straat-Iers’ tegenover ‘boeken-Iers’: taalzuivering in het Iers.’ In Sijs N. van der (ed.). Taaltrots. Purisme in een veertigtal talen . Amsterdam / Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Contact, 193– 195. [Street Irish versus Bookish Irish: Language Purification in Irish] Jongbloed-Faber L. 2014. Taalgebrûk fan Fryske jongerein op sosjale media. Rapportaazje ûndersyk Taalfitaliteit I . Ljouwert: Mercator / Fryske Akademy. [Language Usage of Frisian Youngsters on Social Media. Report Investigation Language Vitality I] Klein J. 2009. ‘ South Africa’s New African Language Dictionaries and their Use for the African Speech Communities.’ Lexikos  19: 423– 435. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Klein J. 2010. ‘Can the New African Language Dictionaries Empower the African Language Speakers of South Africa or Are They Just a Half-hearted Implementation of Language Policies’? In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 1485– 1496. Kornai A. 2013. ‘ Digital Language Death.’ PLoS ONE  8 ( 10): e77056. Accessed on 17 January 2018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077056. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kroskrity P. 2009. ‘Language Renewal as Sites of Language Ideological Struggle. The Need for “Ideological Clarification”’ In Reyhner J., Lockard L. (eds), Indigenous Language Revitalization: Encouragement, Guidance & Lessons Learned . Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University, 71– 83. Kroskrity P. 2015. ‘Designing a Dictionary for an Endangered Language Community: Lexicographical Deliberations, Language Ideological Clarifications’. Language Documentation & Conservation  9: 140– 157. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24637. Kuip F. van der. 2010. ‘Dictionaries and Their Influence on Language Purification in Minority Languages. The Case of Frisian,’ In Dykstra A, Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 1497– 1504. Kuip F. van der, Sijens H.. 2014. ‘The Online Dutch-Frisian Dictionary – Workflow.’ Meeting Cost Action ENeL, Working Group 3 ‘Innovative e-Dictionaries’. Bolzano 19-07-2014. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://www.elexicography.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/KuipSijens_2014_COST_Bolzano.pdf. Lew R. 2014. ‘User-generated Content (UCG) in English Online Dictionaries’ In Abel A., Klosa A. (eds), Der Nutzerbeitrag im Wörterbuchprozess. 3. Arbeitsbericht des wissenschaftlichen Netzwerks “Internetlexikographie” . Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, 8– 26 (= OPAL - Online publizierte Arbeiten zur Linguistik 4/2014). Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://pub.ids-mannheim.de/laufend/opal/opal14-4.html. Lew R. 2016. ‘Dictionaries for learners of English.’ Language Teaching  49. 2: 291– 294. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Melchior L. 2012. ‘Halbkollaboravität und Online-Lexikographie. Ansätze und Überlegungen zu Wörterbuchredaktion und Wörterbuchforschung am Beispiel LEO Deutsch-Italienisch.’ Lexicographica  28: 337– 372. [Demi-collaborativity and Online Lexicography. Inititations to and Reflections on Dictionary Editing and Dictionary Research with LEO German-Italian as an example] Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Melchior L. 2014. ‘Ansätze zu einer halbkollaborativen Lexikographie.’ In Abel A, Klosa A. (eds), Der Nutzerbeitrag im Wörterbuchprozess. 3. Arbeitsbericht des wissenschaftlichen Netzwerks “Internetlexikographie” . Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, 27– 48 (= OPAL - Online publizierte Arbeiten zur Linguistik 4/2014). Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://pub.ids-mannheim.de/laufend/opal/opal14-4.html. Moerdijk F., Tiberius C., Niestadt J.. 2008. ‘Accessing the ANW Dictionary.’ In Zock M., Huang C.-R. (eds), Coling 2008: Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon (COGALEX 2008) . Manchester, 18– 24. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://ww.aclweb.org/anthology/W08-1903. Mosel U. 2011. ‘Lexicography in Endangered Language Communities’ In Austin P., Sallabank J. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 337– 353. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Niestadt J. 2009. ‘De ANW-artikeleditor: software als strategie’ In Beijk E., Colman L., Göbel M., Heyvaert F., Schoonheim T., Tempelaars R., Waszink V. (eds), Fons verborum. Feestbundel voor prof. dr. A.F.M.J. (Fons) Moerdijk, aangeboden door vrienden en collega’s bij zijn afscheid van het Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie . Leiden / Amsterdam: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie / Gopher BV., 215– 222. [The ANW-editor of Articles: Software as a Strategy] Nyota S., Mapara J.. 2007. ‘The Impact of Lexicographical Work on Language Use: The Case of Shona Monolingual Dictionaries in Zimbabwe.’ Lexikos  17: 385– 396. Ogilvie S. 2010. ‘Lexicography and Endangered Languages: What can Europe Learn from the Rest of the World?’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 27– 46. Ogilvie S. 2011. ‘Linguistics, Lexicography and the Revitalization of Endangered Languages.’ International Journal of Lexicography  24. 4: 389– 404. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Oldenhof B. 2006. ‘Van steen des aantstoots tot boegbeeld: Toneel, kleinkunst, film vanaf 1860.’ In Oppewal T., Gezelle Meerburg B., Krol J., Steenmeijer-Wielenga T. (eds), Zolang de wind van de wolken waait: Geschiedenis van de Friese literatuur . Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 263– 303. [From Stumbling Block to Standard Bearer: Theatre, Caberet, Film since 1860] Oosterhaven B. 2005. De fûgel yn dy: 35 jier Fryske folk- en poplietteksten 1969-2004 . Frjentsjer: Utjouwerij Venus. [The Bird inside of You: 35 Years of Frisian Folk- and Poplyrics 1969-2004] Oosterhaven B. 2013. ‘Van Bernlef en ‘Skotse Trije’ tot Gerbrich van Dekken: Over de plaats en de positie van het Friestalige lied in de muziekcultuur van Fryslân’ In De Vogelaer G., Bartelds A., Bloemhoff H. (eds), Muziek in streektaal: Lezingen van de zesde internationale streektaalconferentie op 23 september 2011 in Heerde (Oost-Veluwe) . Groningen: Uitgeverij kleine Uil, in samenwerking met de Stichting Nederlandse Dialecten, 69– 78. [From Bernlef and ‘Skotse Trije’ to Gerbrich van Dekken: About the Place and the Position of the Frisian-language Song in the Music Culture of the Province of Fryslân] Oosterhaven B. 2014. ‘Under de stôk opgroeid: Frysktalige popmuzyk anno 2014.’ Ensafh.– Frysk literêr tydskrift (4 December 2014). Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://www.ensafh.nl/?p=38710. [Blossomed in Adversity: Frisan-language Popmusic Anno 2014] Poortinga Y. 1940. It Fryske folkstoaniel (1860-1930). Ph.D. Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. [The Frisian Popular Drama] Poortinga Y. 1960. ‘De opbou fan de Fryske literatuertael oan it bigjin fan de 19de ieu’ In Dykstra K., Heeroma K., Kok W., Miedema H.T.J. (eds), Fryske stúdzjes oanbean oan prof. dr. J.H. Brouwer . Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. N.V. / Dr. H.J. Prakke & H.M.G. Prakke, 313– 334. [The Construction of the Frisian Literary Language at the Beginning of the 19th Century] Popkema A.T. 2010. ‘State of the Art of the Lexicography of European Lesser Used or Non-State Languages’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 65– 98. Popkema J. 2014. De kristlik-Fryske beweging yn de tweintichste ieu . Gorredijk: Bornmeer. [The Christian Frisian Movement in the 20th Century] Schmitz U. 2013. ‘Monolingual and Bilingual Electronic Dictionaries on the Internet’ In Gouws R.H., Heid U., Schweickard W., Wiegand H.E. (eds), YEAR. Dictionaries, An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Supplementary Volume: Recent Developments with Focus on Electronic and Computational Lexicography . Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1013– 1023. Schoonheim T., Tempelaars R.. 2010. ‘Dutch Lexicography in Progress: the Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek (ANW)’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 718– 725. Schroten J. 1999. ‘Taalzuiverheid in het Catalaans’. In Sijs N. van der (ed.). Taaltrots. Purisme in een veertigtal talen . Amsterdam / Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Contact, 160– 165. [Language Purism in Catalan] Sijens H. 2004. ‘Neologismen yn it Frysk. “Wat wy net hawwe, dat liene wy”.’ It Beaken  66: 256– 298. [Neologisms in Frisian. What we don’t Have, we Borrow] Sijs N. van der. 1999. ‘Inleiding. De rol van taalzuivering in de taalontwikkeling: historische en politieke aspecten’ In Sijs N. van der (ed.), Taaltrots. Purisme in een veertigtal talen . Amsterdam / Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Contact, 11– 36. [Introduction. The Role of Language Purification in the Language Development: Historical and Political Aspects] Svensén B. ( 2009). A Handbook of Lexicography. The Theory and Practice of Dictionary-Making . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taalatlas. 2015. De Fryske taalatlas 2015. Fryske taal yn byld . Ljouwert: Provinsje Fryslân. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://www.fryslan.frl/taalatlas. [The Frisian Langauge Atlas 2015. The Frisian Language in Pictures] Tamminga D.A. 1966. ‘It sprutsen en it skreaune Frysk.’ De Tsjerne  21: 468– 479. [The Spoken and Written Frisian] Tiberius C., Niestadt J.. 2010. ‘The ANW: an Online Dutch Dictionary.’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 747– 753. Tiberius C., Schoonheim T.. 2016. ‘The Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek (ANW) and its Lexicographical Process’ In Hildenbrandt V., Klosa A. (eds), Lexikographische Prozesse bei Internetwörterbüchern . Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, 20– 28 (= OPAL – Online publizierte Arbeiten zur Linguistik 1/2016). Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://pub.ids-mannheim.de/laufend/opal/pdf/opal2016-1.pdf. Trijetalige skoalle. 2007. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://fryskebeweging.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/3-TaligeSkoalle.pdf. [Trilingual School] Toorians L. 1999. ‘Zuivere taal in het Keltisch: Wels, Bretons en Cornish.’ In Sijs N. van der (ed.). Taaltrots. Purisme in een veertigtal talen . Amsterdam / Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Contact, 189-192. [Pure Language in Celtic: Welsh, Breton and Cornish] Veen K.F. van der. 1988. ‘Fariaasje en noarm yn 100 jier wurdboektradysje.’ Us Wurk  37: 104– 128. [Variation and Standard in one Century of Dictionary Tradition] Visser W. 1987. ‘Oer de behanneling fan affiksen en affiksoiden yn ’e hânwurdboeken Frysk-Nederlânsk (1984) en Nederlânsk-Frysk (1985).’ Tydskrift foar Fryske Taalkunde  3: 89– 103. [About the Treatment of Affixes and Affixoïdes in the Concise Dictionaries Frisian-Dutch (1984) and Dutch-Frisian (1985] Visser W. 2000. ‘Frjemd wurdt eigener. Oer de âlde Frânske lienwurden yn it Frysk.’ It Beaken  62: 141– 218. [Strange Becomes more Familiar. About the Old French Loans in Frisian] Wadman A.S. (ed.) 1949. Frieslands Dichters: bloemlezing uit Friese lyriek sinds 1880 met vertalingen in het Nederlands . Leiden: L. Stafleu. [Fryslân’s poets: Anthology of Frisian Poetry since 1880 with Translations into Dutch] Woude G. van der. 1956. ‘Hwat is goed Frysk?’ De Pompeblêdden  27: 49– 55. [What is Good Frisian?] Woude G. van der. 1960. ‘Standaardtaal en dialect in Friesland.’ Taal en Tongval  12: 9– 23. [Standard Language and Dialect in the Province of Fryslân] Ytsma J., Viladot M.A., Giles H.. 1994. ‘ Ethnolinguistic Vitality and Ethnic Identity: Some Catalan and Frisian Data.’ International Journal of the Sociology of Language  108. 1: 63– 78. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Zgusta L. 1971. Manual of Lexicography . The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Zondag K. 2011. Lange oanrin, koarte sprong. Twatalich ûnderwiis yn Fryslân tusken 1800 en 1980 . Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy. [Long Run-up, Short Leap. Bilingual Education in the Province of Fryslân between 1800 and 1980] © 2018 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Lexicography Oxford University Press

Lexicography in a Minority Language: A Multifunctional Online Dutch-Frisian Dictionary

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/lexicography-in-a-minority-language-a-multifunctional-online-dutch-Msyptkb48e
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 2018 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
0950-3846
eISSN
1477-4577
D.O.I.
10.1093/ijl/ecy009
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract The Fryske Akademy in Leeuwarden, the Netherlands, has begun compiling an online Dutch-Frisian dictionary (in Frisian: Online Nederlânsk-Frysk Wurdboek, abbreviated to ONFW). Frisian, a member of the West Germanic language family, is spoken in the Dutch Province of Fryslân by half the population, some 350,000 people. In 2014, it became the second officially recognized language of the Netherlands, alongside the dominant Dutch. The situation of Frisian means that there are few people and resources available to create a dictionary that would serve the broadest possible audience. The most recent Dutch-Frisian dictionaries are FRD (1985), which no longer reflects current usage, and the simpler, more concise FRD (2007). In this article we explain why we chose a Dutch-Frisian production dictionary as our starting point, and we describe how it is designed to help multiple user groups write texts in Frisian and gain an understanding of the Frisian language. We also look at the selection of Frisian language material: dialect forms or standard language, purisms or loan words. Lastly, we outline the software for editing and using the dictionary, and we sketch the further progress of the project. 1. Background Before describing the ONFW, we will first outline the situation of the Frisian language. Frisian is first and foremost a spoken language. Because of its weak social position, and because all Frisian speakers also master Dutch, the national language, many people have no urgent need to write in Frisian. This has led to a growing divergence between the spoken language and the conservative, standardized written language, as a consequence of which the spoken language is not used by writers, and the written language is not understood well by all speakers. Because of this discrepancy between the spoken and written forms, Hof (1933: xiv) argued that more should be written in Frisian, something he believed could be fostered by good education. The necessary educational conditions were put in place over the years: in 1937, primary school pupils were granted the right to be taught in Frisian and in 1980 this became a requirement, which in 1993 was extended to include the lower level of secondary school. In practice, however, education in Frisian has proven minimal. Despite the fact that Frisian does not function optimally as a written language and does not possess a rich written tradition, a fairly standardized written language with unambiguous spelling rules has nevertheless developed over the years. According to Hof (1914: 16ff, 1941: 228ff), this language is made up of a number of Frisian dialects that differ in particular by phonetic and phonological variation, show little lexical differences, and morphologically and syntactically almost match, and is based on the writings of iconic authors from the 17th to early 19th centuries, who then served as models for later writers (Poortinga 1960). After a long series of dictionaries in the 20th century, most of which employed a broad standard inclusive of dialectal variation (Århammar 1990: 2026, Breuker 2003, Duijff 2010: 1480-1481), recently the provincial authorities officially adopted a standard wordlist (Taalweb 2015). This wordlist is based on the Frisian standard tradition and on new insights and choices (for the motivation of the redaction of the wordlist, see Duijff 2016). Thanks to the efforts of the so-called Frisian Movement1, in 1879 standardized orthographic rules were published, and it was not until after the Second World War that these spelling rules were officially adopted – in a slightly modified form – by the Province of Fryslân. So, the compilers of the wordlist had unambiguous spelling rules, and they could build on a spelling tradition of nearly 140 years. Anyone writing in Frisian can fall back on these rules. Nevertheless, only a minor part of the Frisians write in the language. The number of Frisian speakers able to write in Frisian well is put at 14.5% (Taalatlas 2015).2 The use of written Frisian is largely confined to the following domains: Frisian culture Particularly since the influence of Romanticism in the 19th century, Frisian has developed as a literary language. A range of genres are represented in Frisian literature, especially drama (Oldenhof 2006, Poortinga 1940), folk and pop music (Oosterhaven 2005, 2013, 2014), and poetry (Wadman 1949, Bruinja and Hilarides 2004). Media Frisian appears in various written media. In the mainstream media, such as the two provincial newspapers, we find family announcements, opinion pieces, and editorials published in Frisian. Frisian culture is almost the sole subject matter in the latter. A range of texts in Frisian are also published on the Internet. A recent study (Jongbloed-Faber 2014) has shown that Dutch predominates among Frisian speakers in social media, but that half of young Frisians do use Frisian (mainly phonetically spelt, non-standardized), although not consistently. Public administration and jurisprudence Although Dutch is the predominant written language in public administration, the provincial government in particular strives to maximize its use of Frisian. Thus the minutes of Provincial Council meetings are for the most part written in Frisian, and advertisements and announcements from the Province are often in Frisian. Many municipal authorities have developed policy on the use of Frisian, but here too Dutch is predominant in practice. In fact, within the legal domain, Frisian is only written on an incidental basis by notaries. In public administration and jurisprudence, however, there are terminology resources in the form of a glossary for official communications (De Haan 1989), models for notaries (Duijff 2017), and a legal dictionary (FRD 2000a). Religion The Bible, psalms, songs, and church forms are available in Frisian, but compared with their Dutch counterparts, they are little used in religious gatherings (Popkema 2014). Education Textbooks and teaching resources are available for use in all sectors where education in Frisian is compulsory. There are also resources for sectors that do not have that requirement. Nationally organized written exams are available for three levels of secondary education (Examenblad). For reading instruction, there are books written originally in Frisian as well as translations from other languages. After the Second World War in particular, pedagogical arguments led to a push to expand teaching in Frisian. Teaching hours were extended and plans were drawn up to make Frisian the sole language of instruction in the first years of primary schooling. These bilingual (Frisian and Dutch) school programmes were later discontinued (Zondag 2011). Some schools now work with a trilingual programme in English, Frisian and Dutch (Trijetalige skoalle 2007).We can cite the social position of Frisian, pressure from Dutch, minimal support of the national Dutch central state, and insufficient education in the language as reasons for the limited mastery of written Frisian. Indifference on the part of ordinary Frisians towards their mother tongue may also play a role. A survey of municipal officials in Heerenveen, for example, revealed that the majority of the Frisian speakers among them did not have a positive attitude towards the language, although the attitude among Frisian speakers in that municipality tended to be more positive than among Dutch speakers (Gorter 1983: 67-76, 164-165, 1993: 164-165). This indifference is also reflected in educational practice, with the quality of education in Frisian being reliant thus far on the intrinsic motivation of the teacher (Zondag 2011). Many Frisians have had little or no education in Frisian, and are therefore more or less illiterate in their own language. If they want to write in Frisian, they frequently do not have the Frisian vocabulary and idiomatic expressions at their disposal to do so, and they are often uncertain about the spelling. Instead, ever since Dutch was made a compulsory school subject in 1901, they have been trained to express themselves in writing in Dutch. Of course, Frisians are Dutch people too, and are part not just of Frisian culture but also of Dutch culture, where written Dutch predominates. Given this situation, only a minority of the Frisians are motivated to write in their mother tongue. All this could give the impression that Frisian is in decline. Gorter (1982), however, reports that although Frisian is less vital than Dutch, it enjoys a greater vitality than Dutch regional vernaculars. In his view, Frisian mainly lacks economic status and institutional support, a conclusion also drawn by Ytsma et al. (1994: 75-76). Since then, however, the framework has been put in place for the use of Frisian in education and public administration, and about half of the inhabitants of the Province of Fryslân are continuing to pass the language on to their children (Taalatlas 2015). Also significant seems to be the positive attitude towards Frisian among young Frisian speakers on social media (Jongbloed-Faber 2014: 38). For example, more than 10 percent of the tweets of young Frisian speakers are in Frisian, while 65 percent of them are in Dutch. A majority of the young Frisians uses the majority language Dutch. However, on the annual ‘twitter day’ more than 50 percent of the tweets are in Frisian. These figures are suggestive of the language attitude of the Frisians: They have a positive attitude, but writing in their mother tongue is not common. Of course, a lot of the twitter partners are native speakers of Dutch, and Frisians are used to speaking Dutch with them. Why should they write Frisian with them? The provincial government, which is responsible for language policy, and the Frisian Movement in a broad sense, actively promote the preservation of Frisian, in particular by encouraging the use of Frisian in education, public administration, media, and culture (Bestuursafspraak 2013). The preferred vocabulary list (Taalweb 2015) and the ONFW are a result of that policy and, with support from the Province of Fryslân, they have been developed and made available online free of charge. It is important for dictionary makers and compilers of other products of language documentation to be aware, as Kroskrity (2009, 2015) argues, of the language ideology of the users of an endangered or lesser-used language. They have to reconcile the discrepancy between the ideology of the language users and that of the product developers. In the case of the ONFW, it might be an advantage that the lexicographic staff of the Fryske Akademy only consists of native speakers of Frisian. 2. The role of dictionaries in language preservation The question remains whether a dictionary can help to preserve a language. This does appear to be the case in southern Africa, where considerable effort has gone into producing lexicographic descriptions of indigenous languages following the demise of colonialism. These dictionaries have been shown to have a tangible impact on the use of those languages. The dictionaries provide the necessary terminological expansion and serve to enhance the status of the indigenous languages, resulting in an increase in the conscious use of those languages in domains such as education, the media (especially advertising) and local administration (Nyota and Mapara 2007). These African dictionaries (both printed versions and those online or on cell phones) appear to be a successful implementation of a language policy that supports the development and promotion of indigenous languages (Klein 2009: 433, 2010: 1494-1495). Klein does, however, question the likelihood of success if these dictionaries are not made available free of charge. Thanks to their prestige, dictionaries have also played a key role in preserving and revitalizing endangered languages in America and the Pacific (Mosel 2011: 339-340, 353, Ogilvie 2010: 34-41, 2011: 391-402). Ogilvie also notes that survival chances ultimately depend on a positive attitude to the language and a willingness among parents to pass on the language. Attitude towards language also plays a role in the use of purisms in languages that contain many loan words, often minority languages. Purisms that are included in dictionaries become part of the language, whereas loan words that are not included seem to disappear (Hadebe 2007, Van der Kuip 2010). Once again, however, it should be said that a positive language attitude is decisive for the use or otherwise of so-called ‘pure’ forms (Van der Sijs 1999, Van der Kuip 2010). Thus, scepticism about the influence of dictionaries on usage is not without foundation. Bartels (2010: 1461) holds the view that a dictionary is not of itself able to revitalize or preserve a minority language. The survival chances of Frisian, and the role the new dictionary might play are not matters we can comment on now. What we do know for certain, however, is that the dictionary has to be in digital form. Kornai (2013) has calculated that 95 percent of languages are threatened by digital death. For smaller or minority languages in particular, it is essential to have digital language resources (see also Popkema 2010). In the digital age, the reality for a digital society seems to be that if it’s not on the web and can’t be downloaded, it is doomed to vanish. 3. One dictionary, multiple user groups We have seen what the Frisian language context is, and what opportunities there are for dictionaries in supporting minority languages; we will now discuss the dictionary itself. The ONFW is primarily a production dictionary which takes modern general standard Dutch as its source language and the standard Frisian equivalent as its target language. The emphasis is on the meaning and use of words and phrases, but grammatical information is also provided. The dictionary is designed in such a way that users have optimum access via the Internet. It will be constantly updated and, as befits an online dictionary, will remain a work in progress. The ONFW will also offer users opportunities for interaction. The main target group for the ONFW are active users wanting to translate from Dutch (the source language) into Frisian (the target language), and to produce texts in Frisian. A second target group comprises passive users wishing to learn more about Frisian. Passive users may also include those with a purely linguistic interest. Given the Frisian language situation, the active-user group (speakers of Dutch) needs to be expanded to include speakers of Frisian. The fact that a Dutch-Frisian production dictionary is intended for Dutch speakers goes without saying, but that it also, and especially, targets Frisian speakers deserves further explanation. In Section 1, we observed that Dutch as the majority language exerts immense pressure on Frisian, and that education in Frisian is far from optimal. As a consequence, many Frisian speakers pepper their language with Dutch words, forms and structures, and they write Dutch more often, and better, than they do Frisian. Further, until quite recently there was no clearly preferred language form for Frisian. Many Frisians therefore lack confidence when writing their own language, which can be seen as an undesirable situation in, for example, public administration and education (Hiemstra 1999: 254-255). In practice, written standard Frisian is a language that the average Frisian speaker has not mastered. We therefore share Popkema’s (2010: 89) view that for the purposes of text production, Frisian speakers are best served by a dictionary that has Dutch as the source language, and Frisian as the target language.3 The fact that we are making a single production dictionary for more than one user group has everything to do with the position of Frisian as a minority language. Moreover, minority languages often lack the resources to make a separate dictionary for each and every user group. Whereas printed multifunctional or hybrid dictionaries can be problematical when it comes to design, this need no longer be the case in the digital age. A growing number of online dictionaries are of a hybrid nature, because they are no longer subject to the technical and financial constraints of printed dictionaries (Schmitz 2013: 1017). Clearly, the design of a dictionary is dependent on the intended users. For the ONFW, these are first and foremost active users wishing to write in Frisian. This group is better served by an elucidation of how the Frisian word stem can, and cannot, be used, than by a lengthy list of Frisian equivalents of transparent compounds. In an active dictionary, the emphasis is therefore more on the content of the dictionary articles, the micro-structure, than on the build-up of the lemma list, the macro-structure (Dykstra 1989: 137, Lew 2016: 291, Visser 1987: 89-92). Greater attention to word stems does not mean that compound words are neglected. Non-transparent compounds and derivations do of course need to be presented together with an equivalent, but common transparent compounds and derivations that lack a predictable one-to-one translation in the target language will also have to be included as lemmas. For the Frisian-English dictionary (FRD 2000b), Dykstra (1989: 143) gives the examples hûneútstalling, hûnegeblaf, hûnespan, hûnekoer, hûneras, for which the English equivalents are either a compound or a phrase: dog show, barking of dogs, team of dogs/dog team, dog basket, breed of dogs. For the Frisian equivalents of the Dutch entries, it is important not only to show by way of examples, collocations, structures, and expressions how the word can be used, but also where necessary to provide these equivalents with labels showing use restrictions (see Duval 2008, Svensén 2009: 276ff). The following example from Frisian journalistic practice demonstrates how essential this is: the reinforcing adverb yngreven (‘thoroughly, in heart and soul’), which is only used in a limited number of collocations, is regularly bandied about on radio and television as the equivalent of the non-context-bound Dutch phrase door en door (‘thoroughly, through and through’). With the exception of technical and scientific terms, in interlingual equivalence these words are seldom interchangeable or fully semantically identical in all contexts (Adamska-Sałaciak 2013: 337-339). Labels or abbreviated definitions are also indispensable if the different meanings of a word in the source language have different equivalents in the target language. An example is the Dutch noun roos: in the sense of ‘flower’, the Frisian equivalent is roas; in the sense of ‘dandruff’ it is dúst. Another example is the Frisian noun kras, which cannot be translated by one and the same word in English in all its senses: ‘(..) 1. [movement] scratch 2. [result] scratch 3. [sound] scrape’ (Dykstra 1989: 148). Alongside active users, the ONFW is also intended for passive users, i.e. speakers of Frisian and other languages who would like to know more about Frisian. Although a Frisian-Dutch dictionary is not currently feasible, we believe we can still serve this user group with our Dutch-Frisian dictionary. As stated earlier, compiling a multifunctional dictionary need not be a problem if it is produced in digital form. Users do not need an alphabetical list of Frisian lemmas, but can simply enter a Frisian word or form in the user interface. A few clicks will take them to the phonological or grammatical information they are looking for. For the time being, however, the ONFW will mainly be available for active use. Because the ONFW is intended first and foremost for those wanting to write in Frisian, presenting phonological and grammatical information is not our highest priority, although that information is partly available in the preferred vocabulary database (Taalweb 2015). Following expansion of that database and linkage to the dictionary database, the ONFW will eventually be able to grow into the multifunctional dictionary that we envisage. 4. Data selection from a minority language For Dutch, the source language of the ONFW, we can draw on the corpus of the Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek (ANW). This is a dictionary of contemporary standard Dutch in the Netherlands and Flanders that describes the Dutch vocabulary from 1970 onwards (Schoonheim and Tempelaars 2010: 718). As far as Frisian, the target language of the ONFW, is concerned, we have to contend with the fact that it is not comparable to Dutch. Relatively few people write in Frisian and they do not do so across all domains. As a result, many terms will not occur in the Frisian language database’s corpus of contemporary written Frisian. Speakers of Frisian fill in these lexical gaps with loan words from Dutch and English (Sijens 2004). This raises several questions that confront lexicographers with regard to almost all minority languages. Which dialect forms are preferred in the dictionary where no standard exists? Should loan words from the majority language that are widespread in the spoken language be replaced in the dictionary by purisms, and hence be prescribed, or should they be accepted as they are? Mosel (2011: 340), who studies and describes endangered languages that do not have a written tradition, adopts a fairly clear position on dialect selection: for dictionaries of these languages she chooses one dialect over another. This choice is made on the basis of factors such as the viability, larger reach, and greater distribution of the dialect in question. She is of course aware that these choices may have a disastrous effect on other dialects. The situation is slightly different for Frisian as a written language. One hundred years ago, Hof (1914: 16ff) had already noted the existence of a written standard language that had developed over the years from the two larger dialects, Clay Frisian and Woodland Frisian, largely to the exclusion of the smaller, more divergent dialects – the North Quarter and Southwest Quarter dialects. We see this situation reflected in dictionaries. Refer to the Table 1 with several dialect forms from Hof (1933). The ones in bold are given preference in the dictionaries. Table 1: Examples of lexical variants across Frisian dialects (after Hof 1993) Clay Frisian  Woodland Frisian  North Quarter dialect  Southwest Quarter dialect  gloss  achter  achter  achter  efter, echter  ‘after, behind’  bûter  bûter  buotter  buter  ‘butter’  each  eech  êch  eech  ‘eye’  heel  hiel, heul  heel  heel  ‘whole’  hij  hy, hij  hij  hij  ‘he’  rom  rûm  rûm  rom  ‘spacious, wide’  woartel  woartel, wjartel  woartel  wörtel  ‘root, carrot’  Clay Frisian  Woodland Frisian  North Quarter dialect  Southwest Quarter dialect  gloss  achter  achter  achter  efter, echter  ‘after, behind’  bûter  bûter  buotter  buter  ‘butter’  each  eech  êch  eech  ‘eye’  heel  hiel, heul  heel  heel  ‘whole’  hij  hy, hij  hij  hij  ‘he’  rom  rûm  rûm  rom  ‘spacious, wide’  woartel  woartel, wjartel  woartel  wörtel  ‘root, carrot’  Table 1: Examples of lexical variants across Frisian dialects (after Hof 1993) Clay Frisian  Woodland Frisian  North Quarter dialect  Southwest Quarter dialect  gloss  achter  achter  achter  efter, echter  ‘after, behind’  bûter  bûter  buotter  buter  ‘butter’  each  eech  êch  eech  ‘eye’  heel  hiel, heul  heel  heel  ‘whole’  hij  hy, hij  hij  hij  ‘he’  rom  rûm  rûm  rom  ‘spacious, wide’  woartel  woartel, wjartel  woartel  wörtel  ‘root, carrot’  Clay Frisian  Woodland Frisian  North Quarter dialect  Southwest Quarter dialect  gloss  achter  achter  achter  efter, echter  ‘after, behind’  bûter  bûter  buotter  buter  ‘butter’  each  eech  êch  eech  ‘eye’  heel  hiel, heul  heel  heel  ‘whole’  hij  hy, hij  hij  hij  ‘he’  rom  rûm  rûm  rom  ‘spacious, wide’  woartel  woartel, wjartel  woartel  wörtel  ‘root, carrot’  According to Hof (1914: 16ff), Frisian writers from the 17th to the early 19th centuries employed a fairly consistent language choice, which later writers subsequently modelled themselves on, more so than on their own dialect. Even then, written Standard Frisian had fairly fixed forms and, as a blend of the two largest indigenous dialects,4 had become a mainly written variety in its own right: one that was hardly spoken anywhere in that exact form. We therefore assume that people who write Frisian are aware they are using a written, supraregional language, and are not writing in their own dialect, just as people who write Dutch know that they are writing in a language, Algemeen Nederlands (Standard Dutch), that is only spoken by a minority (Van der Woude 1956: 49, Tamminga 1966: 475). This Frisian written language is recorded in dictionaries from the 20th century. However, these dictionaries often gave more than one dialect form of a word, with the Clay Frisian form usually listed first (Van der Veen 1988: 125). In practice, this form of presentation functioned implicitly as an indication of a standard (Ibid.,121). While linguists and educationalists endlessly discussed the language norm, a standard in the above sense had already been operating for a century (Hiemstra 1999, Duijff 2010). With the necessary adjustments, that standard has now been consolidated and at the same time fine-tuned in the preferred vocabulary (Taalweb 2015, Duijff 2016), which has been officially adopted in a decision by the provincial government. One hundred years after Hof’s observation that a more or less standardized written language existed, we would expect, based on Mosel (2011), that the excluded Frisian dialects would have all but disappeared. It hasn’t come to that, although there are indications that the use of the written standard in education has caused typical forms such as the North Quarter buosse (‘pocket’) and sepe (‘soap’) to be gradually replaced by the standard forms bûse and sjippe (Boelens and Ytsma 1989: 14). Whether this dialect levelling will continue over time is not relevant for the ONFW, which is based on the standard written language developed through a tradition going back many years. An as yet unresolved issue is that of the choice between loan words and purisms. For Zgusta (1971: 87) and Mosel (2011: 343), the answer is clear-cut. Loan words are part of a language and therefore deserve their place in the dictionary; otherwise the dictionary would not represent the living language as it is used. In English, for instance, this does not seem to be a problem (see Durkin 2014). English is a strong language, which can process the inclusion of loan words without any problems. However, a weak, and originally predominantly agrarian language such as Frisian, which consequently has lexical gaps in many domains and depends on borrowing from or via the dominant language, Dutch (Visser 2000, Sijens 2004, Popkema 2010), can start to increasingly grow closer to the Dutch language and begin to resemble a dialect of Dutch. It is understandable that lexicographers of minority languages are inclined to ignore loan words in the colloquial language and promote purisms by including them in their dictionaries (see, for example, Hijmans 1999, Toorians 1999 for Celtic languages). Including loan words is also understandable for languages that are virtually no longer spoken. The few surviving speakers would not identify with an artificially created written language and the dictionary designed to prevent the language from dying out would fail to achieve its objective. Frisian may be a weak language, but is not an endangered language at present. As we saw in Section 1, it can still be considered quite vital and the elimination of loan words and loan translations and the promotion of purisms have sometimes had an impact. See Table 2 for examples are taken from Tamminga (1966) and Van der Kuip (2010). Table 2: Purisms in Frisian Dutch word  Frisian loan or calque  Frisian purism  gloss  agenda  agenda, aginda  wurklist  ‘agenda’  geboorte  geboarte  berte  ‘birth’  getuige  getuge  tsjûge  ‘witness’  penningmeester  penningmeester, pinningmaster  ponghâlder, skathâlder  ‘treasurer’  vaderland  faderlân  heitelân  ‘fatherland’  vergadering  fergadering, fergearringe  gearkomste  ‘meeting’  weerbericht  waarbericht  waarberjocht  ‘weather report’  Dutch word  Frisian loan or calque  Frisian purism  gloss  agenda  agenda, aginda  wurklist  ‘agenda’  geboorte  geboarte  berte  ‘birth’  getuige  getuge  tsjûge  ‘witness’  penningmeester  penningmeester, pinningmaster  ponghâlder, skathâlder  ‘treasurer’  vaderland  faderlân  heitelân  ‘fatherland’  vergadering  fergadering, fergearringe  gearkomste  ‘meeting’  weerbericht  waarbericht  waarberjocht  ‘weather report’  Table 2: Purisms in Frisian Dutch word  Frisian loan or calque  Frisian purism  gloss  agenda  agenda, aginda  wurklist  ‘agenda’  geboorte  geboarte  berte  ‘birth’  getuige  getuge  tsjûge  ‘witness’  penningmeester  penningmeester, pinningmaster  ponghâlder, skathâlder  ‘treasurer’  vaderland  faderlân  heitelân  ‘fatherland’  vergadering  fergadering, fergearringe  gearkomste  ‘meeting’  weerbericht  waarbericht  waarberjocht  ‘weather report’  Dutch word  Frisian loan or calque  Frisian purism  gloss  agenda  agenda, aginda  wurklist  ‘agenda’  geboorte  geboarte  berte  ‘birth’  getuige  getuge  tsjûge  ‘witness’  penningmeester  penningmeester, pinningmaster  ponghâlder, skathâlder  ‘treasurer’  vaderland  faderlân  heitelân  ‘fatherland’  vergadering  fergadering, fergearringe  gearkomste  ‘meeting’  weerbericht  waarbericht  waarberjocht  ‘weather report’  A positive attitude towards the language appears to play a decisive role in the use of purisms. In practice, people who write in Frisian are willing to learn it, and are intrinsically motivated to write it. What kind of Frisian they want to write, has never been investigated. They just use the language offered in language tools and practiced in education. So, we assume that people who write in Frisian do have a positive attitude and are keen to write the language well. Many people who write in Frisian therefore try to avoid (Dutch) loan words or forms that resemble Dutch5 (Van der Woude 1960: 21, Breuker 1993: 275). There are of course creative writers who wish to add local or personal colour to their work and who like to use Dutch loan words from the vernacular. Publishers have made exceptions for them, especially at the end of last century (Hiemstra 1999: 257). The ONFW, however, is not compiled with only this small group in mind but, with the support of the provincial government’s language policy, is intended for all those wishing or needing to write in Standard Frisian. Nevertheless, it could be useful to include the most frequent and more or less established forms, and to offer the loan word as well as the purism in the dictionary (see e.g. Schroten 1999 for Catalan). This method entails that a description of the conventional language use is given (description), while simultaneously showing which forms are desirable (prescription). In the literature, the combination of description and prescription is called proscription (Bergenholtz and Gouws 2010). Users of the dictionary can then decide for themselves whether to use a Frisian colloquial language in which Dutch is clearly recognizable, or a Frisian language that is mostly based on indigenous words and constructions. 5. Dictionary-writing system and user interface Not only are we using the Dutch data in the corpus that serves as basis for the ANW, but we are also making use, in modified form, of the ANW’s dictionary writing system (lexicographical workstation and editor). The ANW is a monolingual online dictionary that describes written standard Dutch from 1970 onwards (for details, see Moerdijk et al. 2008, Niestadt 2009, Schoonheim and Tempelaars 2010, Tiberius and Niestadt 2010). The ONFW, on the other hand, is a bilingual production dictionary. It therefore requires a different feature, namely the translation of material from the source language, Dutch, into the target language, Frisian. The ONFW takes as its starting point the ANW’s editorial schema, which we will only partially fill in for the source language Dutch. It is not necessary for a production dictionary to provide phonological and grammatical information for lemmas in the source language; an indication of the part of speech will suffice. As stated in section 3, however, labelling or compact definitions are indispensable for sub-senses. We also take the liberty of restricting or expanding the number of lemmas, example sentences, collocations, fixed expressions, proverbs, derivations, and compounds. The data is entered in an XML format that meets a specific XML schema, stored in a MySQL database with metadata (see Tiberius and Schoonheim 2016: 22-24). In each field containing an element from the source language, a field will be added with an equivalent in the target language and one or more additional fields where there are synonymous equivalents in the target language. In addition, fields with phonological and grammatical information can be filled in for the equivalents in the target language (Figure 1). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide The Dictionary Writing System with the Dutch entry binnen (‘inside’), with translations binnen and yn (‘in’). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide The Dictionary Writing System with the Dutch entry binnen (‘inside’), with translations binnen and yn (‘in’). We would love to be able to say: ‘Welcome to the lexicographical garden of Eden’, were it not for the complication of the recent government-imposed cuts to the Dutch Language Institute (IvdNT), which has forced the ANW editors to reduce their plans. For the ANW, this means among other things that the innovative onomasiological search is only implemented for nouns and no longer for adjectives and verbs (Colman 2016: 153). For the editors of the ONFW, it means having to extract the adjectives and verbs from the ANW corpus ourselves with the help of the Sketch Engine suite. If that is the case, then we ourselves will pluck the fruit from the tree, to continue the above metaphor. The modified ANW dictionary-writing system will also be available for other bilingual dictionaries that have Dutch as the source language. For example, Henk Bloemhoff, a guest researcher at the Fryske Akademy, is working on a production dictionary for Stellingwerfs, a Low Saxon language variety spoken in the southeast of the Province of Fryslân and neighbouring parts of the Provinces of Overijssel and Drenthe. How is the ONFW being made accessible to Internet users? In line with the modified ANW dictionary-writing system, the Fryske Akademy has developed an interface that is intended for both user groups. For active users, who translate from Dutch into Frisian and who produce texts in Frisian, the interface consists of a screen showing the Dutch lemma and all the accompanying information, plus the associated Frisian equivalents. Where necessary, to help users who search for information in larger articles, clues in the form of labels are provided for the sub-senses (Figure 2). Different typography or colours are used to help users find and remember collocations and fixed expressions. Both methods are shown to be highly effective in practice (Dziemianko 2014, 2015, Lew 2016). Figure 2. View largeDownload slide The ONFW interface with the Dutch entry braam (‘blackberry and ‘burr’), with the translations toarnbei (‘blackberry’) and braam (‘burr’). Figure 2. View largeDownload slide The ONFW interface with the Dutch entry braam (‘blackberry and ‘burr’), with the translations toarnbei (‘blackberry’) and braam (‘burr’). Passive users, wanting to learn more about Frisian, will work with the same interface. The Frisian words can be called up throughout the dictionary: a click on a Frisian word will take users to a menu where they can select from phonological and grammatical information. Another click takes them to a pop-up screen with the information they have requested. 6. Editing, publishing, and user involvement The ONFW will appear online in stages (Van der Kuip and Sijens 2014). In this respect, our approach is not essentially different from that of the ANW (see Tiberius and Schoonheim 2016: 25-26). The user’s role is more important for the ONFW than for the ANW. Active user involvement in an online dictionary is vitally important for a minority language because of the many lexical gaps. User involvement can take different forms. Abel and Meyer (2013: 180, 2016) make a distinction between direct, indirect, and accessory user contributions (‘direkte, indirekte’ and ‘begleitende Nutzerbeteiligung’). Direct contribution applies to collaborative dictionaries, where users themselves write and upload lemmas, and semi-collaborative dictionaries, where quality control is still carried out by an editorial team trained in lexicography (see also Melchior 2012: 352-353). Indirect contribution refers to the giving and requesting of feedback on dictionary content, while accessory contribution involves contributions to blogs, forums, or the language games that some dictionaries offer (Abel and Meyer 2013: 189, 2016: 273). Lew (2014: 10) makes a three-fold distinction between content that is generated almost entirely by users, user-generated content combined with professional content (also known as semi-collaborative), and professional content, supplemented and enriched by user content. As stated above, we regard collaboration with users as very important. However, the ONFW cannot be called a collaborative or semi-collaborative dictionary in the strict sense outlined above. That’s because, to use Abel and Meyer’s terminology, the contribution from our users is of both an indirect and accessory nature. In Lew’s (2014) terms, the ONFW can be characterized as a dictionary whose content is determined by professionals, supplemented or enriched by content supplied by users. We see various opportunities for involving users in the dictionary. They could be approached through social media to make suggestions for Frisian equivalents that are still missing. Surveys with targeted questions about terminology could be sent to a dedicated group of professional translators and writers. And users could open a mailbox on the user interface that allows them to comment on and approve the dictionary content (Duijff et al. 2016). Although not all user contributions will be equally useful, they will always be deserving of feedback. To prevent disappointment or resentment, editorial decisions should be reported to users, outlining the reasons (Melchior 2014: 45). No doubt, positive feedback will encourage users to continue to contribute their suggestions and comments. 7. Concluding remarks Although the ONFW has a multifunctional purpose, it is primarily intended for speakers of Frisian to enable them to produce texts in Frisian. In this article, we have outlined the language situation in the Dutch Province of Fryslân. We have shown that Frisian contains many loan words as a result of pressure from the dominant Dutch, and that it has many lexical gaps because of the limited number of written domains in which it is used. We have also explained that many people have an imperfect command of written Frisian, as opposed to Dutch, because of the lack of a social need for it and the absence of quality education. For these reasons, we have chosen Dutch as the source language, since most people have a better command of written Dutch than of Frisian, the target language. This is also why the ONFW presents many possible Frisian usages in the form of example sentences, collocations, and fixed expressions, and why so many alternatives are given for Dutch loan words. Footnotes 1 The Frisian Movement, which comprises individuals and institutes, was founded in the first half of the 19th century, and was based on the Romantic ideas. 2 This represents an increase compared with 2011, when 12.1 percent of those surveyed reported being able to write in Frisian well or very well. In this questionnaire, as in others, there was only a question about ‘writing in Frisian’, not about specific skills like fluency and control of the orthography. 3 This was already a reality one hundred years ago. At that time, however, some language advocates still rejected the notion of a Dutch-Frisian dictionary. In response to the imminent publication of the FRD (1918), Hof made the following ironic comment about its users: ‘It Nederlânsk hat ús sa yn ’e macht, en wy kenne as ’t knypt sa’n bytsje Frysk, det wy moatte allegedurigen neisjên kinne hwet it Fryske wird is for ’t Nederlânsk dat him yn ús brein foarmet as wy tinke. Oars kinne wy net Frysk skriuwe’ (Hof 1916: 317). [‘Dutch has us so much in its sway, and when push comes to shove we know so little Frisian, that we have to constantly be able to check what the Frisian word is for the Dutch that forms in our brain when we think. Otherwise we can’t write in Frisian.’] 4 For instance, the dialects have different forms for the pronoun ‘we’, but in the standard written language only one of these is attested, one that is most distant from the Dutch equivalent. Another example is the variation found in the verb ‘to have’. Only one form, hawwe, is accepted in the norm. The dialectal alternatives hewwe, ha, hè, hebbe and habbe are ignored in the standard. 5 Examples are the Frisian dialect forms achter (‘after, behind’) and heel (‘whole’). These are exactly the same as the Dutch equivalents. In this case, dictionaries display a preference for the divergent dialectal forms efter and hiel, which are only spoken in a small area (see Table 1). References A. Dictionaries Duijff P. 2000. Juridisch Woordenboek Nederlands-Fries, met een index Fries-Nederlands . Groningen / Leeuwarden: Martinus Nijhoff / Fryske Akademy. [Legal Dictionary Dutch-Frisian, with an Index Frisian-Dutch] (FRD 2000a) Dykstra A. 2000. Frysk-Ingelsk wurdboek / Frisian-English Dictionary, with a corresponding English-Frisian word list . Leeuwarden: Afûk / Fryske Akademy. (FRD 2000b) Schoonheim T. (ed. in chief). Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek . Leiden: Instituut voor de Nederlandse Taal. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://anw.ivdnt.org. [General Dutch Dictionary] (ANW) Spoelstra J., Post J., Hut A.. 2007. Prisma woordenboek Fries, Fries-Nederlands / Nederlands-Fries. Utrecht: Uitgeverij Het Spectrum (Second edition 2016, also available as app: https://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/Woordenboek-Fries-Prisma/id1150361520?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D4). [Prisma Dictionary Frisian, Frisian-Dutch / Dutch-Frisian] (FRD 2007) Visser W. 1985. Frysk Wurdboek. Nederlânsk-Frysk . Leeuwarden: A.J. Osinga Uitgeverij. [Frisian Dictionary. Dutch-Frisian] (FRD 1985) Wumkes G.A., de Vries A.. 1918. Nederlandsch-Friesch Woordenboek . Sneek: A.J. Osinga. [Dutch-Frisian Dictionary] (FRD 1918) B. Other literature Abel A., Meyer C.M.. 2013. ‘The Dynamics Outside the Paper: User Contributions to Online Dictionaries’ In Kosem I., Kallas J., Gantar P., Krek S., Langemets M., Tuulik M. (eds), Electronic lexicography in the 21st century: thinking outside the paper. Proceedings of the eLex 2013 conference , 17– 19 October 2013, Tallinn, Estonia. Ljubljana / Tallinn: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovene Studies / Eesti Keele Instituut, 179-194. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://eki.ee/elex2013/proceedings/eLex2013_13_Abel+Meyer.pdf. Abel A., Meyer C.M.. 2016. ‘Nutzerbeteiligung.’ In Klosa A., Müller-Spitzer C. (eds), Internetlexikographie . Berlin / Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 249– 290. Adamska-Sałaciak A. 2013. ‘Equivalence, Synonymy, and Sameness of Meaning in a Bilingual Dictionary.’ International Journal of Lexicography  26. 3: 329– 345. Århammar N. 1990. ‘Friesische Lexicographie’ In Hausmann F.J., Reichmann O., Wiegand H.E., Zgusta L. (eds), Wörterbücher/Dictionaries/Dictionnaires, Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexicographie/An international Encyclopedia of Lexicography/Encyclopédie internationale de lexicographie . Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2022– 2036. [Frisian Lexicography] Bartels H. 2010. ‘The German-Lower Sorbian Online Dictionary’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 1450– 1462. Bestuursafspraak. 2013. Bestuursafspraak Friese taal en cultuur 2013-2018. ’s-Gravenhage / Leeuwarden: Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties / Provincie Fryslân. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://www.fryslan.frl/3413/friese-taal. [Administrative Agreement Frisian Language and Culture] Bergenholtz H., Gouws R.H.. 2010. ‘A Functional Approach to the Choice between Descriptive, Prescriptive and Proscriptive Lexicography.’ Lexikos  20: 26– 51. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Boelens K., Ytsma J.. 1989. ‘Brekking en idioom by Dongeradielster tsieners’ In Riemersma A.M.J., Riemersma T., Visser W. (eds), Frysk & Vrije Universiteit (1949-1989) . Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 9– 19. [Breaking and Idiom by Dongeradeel Teenagers] Breuker P. 1993. Noarmaspekten fan it hjoeddeiske Frysk. Ph.D. Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. [Aspects of Norm of Contemporary Frisian] Breuker P. 2003. ‘Ferantwurding en útwurking fan noarmaspekten yn it Hânwurdboek I-II en yn it WFT.’ Us Wurk 52: 19-76. [Justification and Elaboration of Aspects of Norm in the Hânwurdboek I-II and in the WFT] Bruinja T., Hilarides H.J. (eds). 2004. Droom in blauwe regenjas: een keuze uit de nieuwe Friese poëzie sinds 1990 . Amsterdam / Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Contact; Leeuwarden: Uitgeverij Bornmeer. [Dream in Blue Raincoat: a Collection of the New Frisian Poetry since 1990] Colman L. 2016. ‘ Sustainable Lexicography: Where to Go from Here with the ANW (Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek, An Online General Language Dictionary of Contemporary Dutch)?’ International Journal of Lexicography  29. 2: 139– 155. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Duijff P. 2010. ‘The Language Norm in a Century of Frisian Dictionaries.’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 1471– 1484. Duijff P. 2016. ‘Towards Modern Standard Frisian’ In Tieken-Boon van Ostade I., Percy C. (eds). Prescription and Tradition in Language. Establishing Standards across Time and Space . Bristol / Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, 532– 549. Duijff P. 2017. Friestalige modellen voor de rechtspraktijk. Accessed on 17 January 2018. https://www.fryske-akademy.nl/nl/kennis-en-samenleving/friese-spelling-en-taalhulp/friestalige-modellen-voor-de-rechtspraktijk. [Frisian-language Models for the benefit of the Legal Practice] Duijff P., van der Kuip F., Sijens H., Visser W.. 2016. ‘User Contributions in the Online Dutch-Frisian Dictionary.’ Meeting Cost Action ENeL, Working Group 3 ‘Innovative e-Dictionaries’. Barcelona 31-03. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://www.elexicography.eu/working-groups/working-group-3/wg3-meetings/wg3-barcelona-2016/. Durkin Ph. 2014. Borrowed Words. A History of Loanwords in English . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Duval A. 2008. ‘Equivalence in Bilingual Dictionaries.’ In Fontenelle T. (ed.), Practical Lexicography. A Reader . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 273– 282. Dykstra A. 1989. ‘Nei in Frysk/Ingelsk wurdboek.’ It Beaken  51: 135– 155. [Towards a Frisian-English Dictionary] Dykstra A., Duijff P., van der Kuip F., Sijens H. (eds). 2015. Taalweb Frysk . Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy. Accessed on 17 January 2018. https://taalweb.frl. [Language Web Frisian] (Taalweb 2015). Dziemianko A. 2014. ‘ On the Presentation and Placement of Collocations in Monolingual English Learners’ Dictionaries: Insights into Encoding and Retention.’ International Journal of Lexicography  27. 3: 259– 279. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Dziemianko A. 2015. ‘Colours in Online Dictionaries: A Case of Functional Labels.’ International Journal of Lexicography  28. 1: 27– 61. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Examenblad. Accessed on 17 January 2018. https://www.examenblad.nl. [Archive of Exams in the Dutch Secundary School] Gorter D. 1982. ‘De libbenskrêft fan it Frysk: in oanset ta analyze.’ Philologia Frisica  9, 91– 105. [The Vitality of Frisian: a Draft of an Analysis] Gorter D. 1983. De taalsituaasje yn de gemeente It Hearrenfean. (In ûndersyk nei it hâlden en dragen foar it Frysk oer fan de befolking) . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. [The Language Situation in the Municipality It Hearrenfean. An Investigation into the Frisian Language Attitude of the Inhabitants] Gorter D. 1993. Taal van klanten en klerken. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam. [Language of Clients and Clerks] de Haan R. 1989. Wurdlist foar it offisjele ferkear  Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy (2nd ed.). [Wordlist of Official Jargon] Hadebe S. 2007. ‘Language Planning and Monolingual Dictionaries: With Special Reference to Ndebele.’ Lexikos  17: 292– 306. Hiemstra S. 1999. ‘De taalnoarm.’ In Dykstra A., Bremmer R. Jr., In skiednis fan ’e Fryske taalkunde . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy, 242– 279. [The Language Standard] Hof J.J. 1914. Is der in Fryske tael ? Ljouwert: R. van der Velde. [Does a Frisian Language Really Exist?] Hof J.J. 1916. ‘In “Nederlandsch-Friesch Woordenboek”.’ Fryslân. Algemien Frysk wykblêd  1: 317– 318. [A Dutch-Frisian Dictionary] Hof J.J. 1933. Friesche dialectgeographie . ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. [Frisian Dialect Geography] Hof J.J. 1941. Fjirtich jier taelstriid. Tredde diel . Dokkum: Fa. J. Kamminga. [Forty Years of Linguistic Conflict] Hijmans A. 1999. ‘‘Straat-Iers’ tegenover ‘boeken-Iers’: taalzuivering in het Iers.’ In Sijs N. van der (ed.). Taaltrots. Purisme in een veertigtal talen . Amsterdam / Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Contact, 193– 195. [Street Irish versus Bookish Irish: Language Purification in Irish] Jongbloed-Faber L. 2014. Taalgebrûk fan Fryske jongerein op sosjale media. Rapportaazje ûndersyk Taalfitaliteit I . Ljouwert: Mercator / Fryske Akademy. [Language Usage of Frisian Youngsters on Social Media. Report Investigation Language Vitality I] Klein J. 2009. ‘ South Africa’s New African Language Dictionaries and their Use for the African Speech Communities.’ Lexikos  19: 423– 435. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Klein J. 2010. ‘Can the New African Language Dictionaries Empower the African Language Speakers of South Africa or Are They Just a Half-hearted Implementation of Language Policies’? In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 1485– 1496. Kornai A. 2013. ‘ Digital Language Death.’ PLoS ONE  8 ( 10): e77056. Accessed on 17 January 2018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077056. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Kroskrity P. 2009. ‘Language Renewal as Sites of Language Ideological Struggle. The Need for “Ideological Clarification”’ In Reyhner J., Lockard L. (eds), Indigenous Language Revitalization: Encouragement, Guidance & Lessons Learned . Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University, 71– 83. Kroskrity P. 2015. ‘Designing a Dictionary for an Endangered Language Community: Lexicographical Deliberations, Language Ideological Clarifications’. Language Documentation & Conservation  9: 140– 157. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24637. Kuip F. van der. 2010. ‘Dictionaries and Their Influence on Language Purification in Minority Languages. The Case of Frisian,’ In Dykstra A, Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 1497– 1504. Kuip F. van der, Sijens H.. 2014. ‘The Online Dutch-Frisian Dictionary – Workflow.’ Meeting Cost Action ENeL, Working Group 3 ‘Innovative e-Dictionaries’. Bolzano 19-07-2014. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://www.elexicography.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/KuipSijens_2014_COST_Bolzano.pdf. Lew R. 2014. ‘User-generated Content (UCG) in English Online Dictionaries’ In Abel A., Klosa A. (eds), Der Nutzerbeitrag im Wörterbuchprozess. 3. Arbeitsbericht des wissenschaftlichen Netzwerks “Internetlexikographie” . Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, 8– 26 (= OPAL - Online publizierte Arbeiten zur Linguistik 4/2014). Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://pub.ids-mannheim.de/laufend/opal/opal14-4.html. Lew R. 2016. ‘Dictionaries for learners of English.’ Language Teaching  49. 2: 291– 294. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Melchior L. 2012. ‘Halbkollaboravität und Online-Lexikographie. Ansätze und Überlegungen zu Wörterbuchredaktion und Wörterbuchforschung am Beispiel LEO Deutsch-Italienisch.’ Lexicographica  28: 337– 372. [Demi-collaborativity and Online Lexicography. Inititations to and Reflections on Dictionary Editing and Dictionary Research with LEO German-Italian as an example] Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Melchior L. 2014. ‘Ansätze zu einer halbkollaborativen Lexikographie.’ In Abel A, Klosa A. (eds), Der Nutzerbeitrag im Wörterbuchprozess. 3. Arbeitsbericht des wissenschaftlichen Netzwerks “Internetlexikographie” . Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, 27– 48 (= OPAL - Online publizierte Arbeiten zur Linguistik 4/2014). Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://pub.ids-mannheim.de/laufend/opal/opal14-4.html. Moerdijk F., Tiberius C., Niestadt J.. 2008. ‘Accessing the ANW Dictionary.’ In Zock M., Huang C.-R. (eds), Coling 2008: Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon (COGALEX 2008) . Manchester, 18– 24. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://ww.aclweb.org/anthology/W08-1903. Mosel U. 2011. ‘Lexicography in Endangered Language Communities’ In Austin P., Sallabank J. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 337– 353. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Niestadt J. 2009. ‘De ANW-artikeleditor: software als strategie’ In Beijk E., Colman L., Göbel M., Heyvaert F., Schoonheim T., Tempelaars R., Waszink V. (eds), Fons verborum. Feestbundel voor prof. dr. A.F.M.J. (Fons) Moerdijk, aangeboden door vrienden en collega’s bij zijn afscheid van het Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie . Leiden / Amsterdam: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie / Gopher BV., 215– 222. [The ANW-editor of Articles: Software as a Strategy] Nyota S., Mapara J.. 2007. ‘The Impact of Lexicographical Work on Language Use: The Case of Shona Monolingual Dictionaries in Zimbabwe.’ Lexikos  17: 385– 396. Ogilvie S. 2010. ‘Lexicography and Endangered Languages: What can Europe Learn from the Rest of the World?’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 27– 46. Ogilvie S. 2011. ‘Linguistics, Lexicography and the Revitalization of Endangered Languages.’ International Journal of Lexicography  24. 4: 389– 404. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Oldenhof B. 2006. ‘Van steen des aantstoots tot boegbeeld: Toneel, kleinkunst, film vanaf 1860.’ In Oppewal T., Gezelle Meerburg B., Krol J., Steenmeijer-Wielenga T. (eds), Zolang de wind van de wolken waait: Geschiedenis van de Friese literatuur . Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 263– 303. [From Stumbling Block to Standard Bearer: Theatre, Caberet, Film since 1860] Oosterhaven B. 2005. De fûgel yn dy: 35 jier Fryske folk- en poplietteksten 1969-2004 . Frjentsjer: Utjouwerij Venus. [The Bird inside of You: 35 Years of Frisian Folk- and Poplyrics 1969-2004] Oosterhaven B. 2013. ‘Van Bernlef en ‘Skotse Trije’ tot Gerbrich van Dekken: Over de plaats en de positie van het Friestalige lied in de muziekcultuur van Fryslân’ In De Vogelaer G., Bartelds A., Bloemhoff H. (eds), Muziek in streektaal: Lezingen van de zesde internationale streektaalconferentie op 23 september 2011 in Heerde (Oost-Veluwe) . Groningen: Uitgeverij kleine Uil, in samenwerking met de Stichting Nederlandse Dialecten, 69– 78. [From Bernlef and ‘Skotse Trije’ to Gerbrich van Dekken: About the Place and the Position of the Frisian-language Song in the Music Culture of the Province of Fryslân] Oosterhaven B. 2014. ‘Under de stôk opgroeid: Frysktalige popmuzyk anno 2014.’ Ensafh.– Frysk literêr tydskrift (4 December 2014). Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://www.ensafh.nl/?p=38710. [Blossomed in Adversity: Frisan-language Popmusic Anno 2014] Poortinga Y. 1940. It Fryske folkstoaniel (1860-1930). Ph.D. Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. [The Frisian Popular Drama] Poortinga Y. 1960. ‘De opbou fan de Fryske literatuertael oan it bigjin fan de 19de ieu’ In Dykstra K., Heeroma K., Kok W., Miedema H.T.J. (eds), Fryske stúdzjes oanbean oan prof. dr. J.H. Brouwer . Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. N.V. / Dr. H.J. Prakke & H.M.G. Prakke, 313– 334. [The Construction of the Frisian Literary Language at the Beginning of the 19th Century] Popkema A.T. 2010. ‘State of the Art of the Lexicography of European Lesser Used or Non-State Languages’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 65– 98. Popkema J. 2014. De kristlik-Fryske beweging yn de tweintichste ieu . Gorredijk: Bornmeer. [The Christian Frisian Movement in the 20th Century] Schmitz U. 2013. ‘Monolingual and Bilingual Electronic Dictionaries on the Internet’ In Gouws R.H., Heid U., Schweickard W., Wiegand H.E. (eds), YEAR. Dictionaries, An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Supplementary Volume: Recent Developments with Focus on Electronic and Computational Lexicography . Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1013– 1023. Schoonheim T., Tempelaars R.. 2010. ‘Dutch Lexicography in Progress: the Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek (ANW)’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 718– 725. Schroten J. 1999. ‘Taalzuiverheid in het Catalaans’. In Sijs N. van der (ed.). Taaltrots. Purisme in een veertigtal talen . Amsterdam / Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Contact, 160– 165. [Language Purism in Catalan] Sijens H. 2004. ‘Neologismen yn it Frysk. “Wat wy net hawwe, dat liene wy”.’ It Beaken  66: 256– 298. [Neologisms in Frisian. What we don’t Have, we Borrow] Sijs N. van der. 1999. ‘Inleiding. De rol van taalzuivering in de taalontwikkeling: historische en politieke aspecten’ In Sijs N. van der (ed.), Taaltrots. Purisme in een veertigtal talen . Amsterdam / Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Contact, 11– 36. [Introduction. The Role of Language Purification in the Language Development: Historical and Political Aspects] Svensén B. ( 2009). A Handbook of Lexicography. The Theory and Practice of Dictionary-Making . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taalatlas. 2015. De Fryske taalatlas 2015. Fryske taal yn byld . Ljouwert: Provinsje Fryslân. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://www.fryslan.frl/taalatlas. [The Frisian Langauge Atlas 2015. The Frisian Language in Pictures] Tamminga D.A. 1966. ‘It sprutsen en it skreaune Frysk.’ De Tsjerne  21: 468– 479. [The Spoken and Written Frisian] Tiberius C., Niestadt J.. 2010. ‘The ANW: an Online Dutch Dictionary.’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress . Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy / Afûk, 747– 753. Tiberius C., Schoonheim T.. 2016. ‘The Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek (ANW) and its Lexicographical Process’ In Hildenbrandt V., Klosa A. (eds), Lexikographische Prozesse bei Internetwörterbüchern . Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, 20– 28 (= OPAL – Online publizierte Arbeiten zur Linguistik 1/2016). Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://pub.ids-mannheim.de/laufend/opal/pdf/opal2016-1.pdf. Trijetalige skoalle. 2007. Accessed on 17 January 2018. http://fryskebeweging.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/3-TaligeSkoalle.pdf. [Trilingual School] Toorians L. 1999. ‘Zuivere taal in het Keltisch: Wels, Bretons en Cornish.’ In Sijs N. van der (ed.). Taaltrots. Purisme in een veertigtal talen . Amsterdam / Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Contact, 189-192. [Pure Language in Celtic: Welsh, Breton and Cornish] Veen K.F. van der. 1988. ‘Fariaasje en noarm yn 100 jier wurdboektradysje.’ Us Wurk  37: 104– 128. [Variation and Standard in one Century of Dictionary Tradition] Visser W. 1987. ‘Oer de behanneling fan affiksen en affiksoiden yn ’e hânwurdboeken Frysk-Nederlânsk (1984) en Nederlânsk-Frysk (1985).’ Tydskrift foar Fryske Taalkunde  3: 89– 103. [About the Treatment of Affixes and Affixoïdes in the Concise Dictionaries Frisian-Dutch (1984) and Dutch-Frisian (1985] Visser W. 2000. ‘Frjemd wurdt eigener. Oer de âlde Frânske lienwurden yn it Frysk.’ It Beaken  62: 141– 218. [Strange Becomes more Familiar. About the Old French Loans in Frisian] Wadman A.S. (ed.) 1949. Frieslands Dichters: bloemlezing uit Friese lyriek sinds 1880 met vertalingen in het Nederlands . Leiden: L. Stafleu. [Fryslân’s poets: Anthology of Frisian Poetry since 1880 with Translations into Dutch] Woude G. van der. 1956. ‘Hwat is goed Frysk?’ De Pompeblêdden  27: 49– 55. [What is Good Frisian?] Woude G. van der. 1960. ‘Standaardtaal en dialect in Friesland.’ Taal en Tongval  12: 9– 23. [Standard Language and Dialect in the Province of Fryslân] Ytsma J., Viladot M.A., Giles H.. 1994. ‘ Ethnolinguistic Vitality and Ethnic Identity: Some Catalan and Frisian Data.’ International Journal of the Sociology of Language  108. 1: 63– 78. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Zgusta L. 1971. Manual of Lexicography . The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Zondag K. 2011. Lange oanrin, koarte sprong. Twatalich ûnderwiis yn Fryslân tusken 1800 en 1980 . Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy. [Long Run-up, Short Leap. Bilingual Education in the Province of Fryslân between 1800 and 1980] © 2018 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

International Journal of LexicographyOxford University Press

Published: May 19, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off