Perceiving Dialects: A Magnitude Estimation Study

L.A. StoweJ. HoeksemaR. Hartsuiker

M Devos

Collaboration: University of Groningen ond University of Gent

Introduction

• In what ways do language variants differ?

• Under conditions of contact how are these differences processed?

• But first…

Introduction

• Perception– Grammaticality judgments (frequently by

individuals)

• Production– Elicitation– Corpus frequency

• Does perception mirror production?

Two variants of Dutch

• Northern (Netherlands Standard Dutch)

• Southern (Belgian Standard Dutch)

• Syntactic differences– Generally more a difference of frequency

than of grammaticality

Overview

Embedded verb cluister “interruption”

No agreement marker in definite neuter

Verbal particle early in embedded clause

Missing infinitive marker

North South

Rare Less rare

*Rare Frequent

Frequent Less freq

*Rare Less rare

Subjects

• Northern• 56 students• University of Groningen• Native Dutch speakers• Northern provinces• Little southern exposure

• Southern• 56 students• University of Gent• Native Dutch speakers

• Little northern exposure

Overview

Embedded verb cluster “interruption”

North South

Rare Less rare

Verbal Cluster Interruption

• PP/NP Inflected V Nonfinite Verb• Inflected V PP/NP Nonfinite Verb

• more common in the Southern variant, although still rare

• “Interrupted” order relatively archaic• More common in idiomatic expressions

Materials

• Dat waren kwesties die de heren uit het oog hadden verloren

• Dat waren kwesties die de heren hadden uit het oog verloren

• Lit: Those were questions that the gentlemen had out the eye lost (lost track of)

• Matched sentence sets

Procedure

• Magnitude estimation– To be able to generalize across speaker

group– For finer distinctions than grammaticality

judgments

• Item sets distributed across lists so matched without repetition

Analysis

• Judgment converted to Z-scores – For greater comparability across groups

• Average judgment per condition calculated for each subject and each item

• Subject and item AnOVas– Language Variant, Cluster Interruption (Idiom)

Southern vs. Northern

-1.2

-0.9

-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

Gent Groningen

Interrupted

Non-Inter

Discussion

• Increased production frequency within language variant increases acceptability

• But infrequent forms are still relatively less acceptable

• Role of idiomaticity?

Non-idiomatic Sentences

• Dat waren brieven die de dames in hun tas hadden gestopt.

• ?*Dat waren brieven die de dames hadden in hun tas gestopt.

• Lit: Those were letters that the ladies had in their bags placed.

Northern Results

-1.5

-1.2

-0.9

-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

idiomatic non-idiomatic

interrupted

non-inter

Southern Results

-1.5

-1.2

-0.9

-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

idiomatic non-idiomatic

interrupted

non-inter

Discussion

• confirms role for idiomaticity in perception as well as production

• Present in both dialects

• although larger effect in the Southern variant

Overview

Embedded verb cluster interruption

No agreement marker in definite neuter

North South

Rare Less rare

*Rare Frequent

Noun Agreement: Northern

• Het oude huis

• Een oud huis

• de oude man

• Een oude man

Southern Variant(for some lexical combinations)

• Het oud huis

• Een oud huis

• de oude man

• Een oude man

Noun Agreement

• Er werden tijdens het belangrijke gesprek een paar afspraken gemaakt.

• ?Er werden tijdens het belangrijk gesprek een paar afspraken gemaakt.

• Lit: There were during the important conversation a couple-of agreements made.

Potential Issue

• If we see little difference

• is this just because it is easy to miss the visual instantiation of agreement in a sentence?

Agreement Controls

• Er werden tijdens de lange vergadering een paar punten besproken.

• *Er werden tijdens de lang vergadering een paar punten besproken.

• Lit: There were during the long meeting a couple-of points discussed.

Southern Results

-0,6

-0,3

0

0,3

0,6

uninfl infl

de

het

Northern Results

-0,6

-0,3

0

0,3

0,6

uninfl infl

de

het

Discussion

• Perception clearly mirrors production

• Inflectionless = inflected version for the Southern variant

Overview

Embedded verb cluster interruption

No agreement marker in definite neuter

North South

Rare Less rare

*Rare Frequent

Discussion

• Rarity vs. grammaticality?

– More acceptable than verb cluster interruption even for Northern variant

– Just as rare and possibly more ungrammatical

• Salience?– Embedded in complex sentence

• Limits generalization across types of construction

Overview

Embedded verb cluster “interruption”

No agreement marker in definite neuter

Verbal particle early in embedded clause

North South

Rare Less rare

*Rare Frequent

Frequent Less freq

Verbal Particle Position

• Inflected V Particle-Nonfinite Verb

• Particle Inflected V Nonfinite Verb

• less common in the Southern variant

• 1/10

Particle Placement

• De chef vroeg hoe het team de werkzaamheden zou indelen.

• ?De chef vroeg hoe het team de werkzaamheden in zou delen.

Lit: The manager asked how the team the tasks would apportion.

Effects of Length

De chef vroeg hoe het team de erkzaamheden zou willen indelen

• ?De chef vroeg hoe het team de werkzaamheden in zou willen delen

• Lit: The manager asked how the team the tasks would want to apportion.

Northern Results

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

long short

fronted

Non-fronted

Southern Results

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

long short

fronted

Non-fronted

Discussion

• Perception mirrors production

• Additional interaction with length of verb cluster– Difficult to identify in corpora due to frequency

differences for the constructions

Discussion

• But big difference in production frequency does not lead to extreme differences in acceptability

• 1/10 still fairly frequent for frequently occurring construction

Overview

Embedded verb cluster interruption

No agreement marker in definite neuter

Verbal particle early in embedded clause

Missing infinitive marker

North South

Rare Less rare

*Rare Frequent

Frequent Less freq

*Rare Less rare

Frequent

Lexical Selection: Infinitive

• V [ to-VP]

• V [ VP]

Lexical Selection: Infinitive

• Het publiek begon (te) praten.

• Lit: The audience began (to) talk

• De baby probeerde (te) lopen.

• Lit: The baby tried (to) walk.

Control Conditions

• De ongenode gast durfde (te) zitten.

• Lit: The uninvited guest dared (to) sit.

• Het was moeilijk om *(te) reizen

• Lit: It was difficult (to) travel.

Results

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

0 te 0 te

Gent Groningen

Verb

om

Discussion

• No evidence for production pattern 8in comprehension

• Why not?– Lexical vatiation based on verb?– Register (written vs. spoken)?– Normative influences?

• Confirmation of production easier to interpret than failure to confirm

Overview

Embedded verb cluister interruption

No agreement marker in definite neuter

Verbal particle early in embedded clause

Missing infinitive marker

North South

Rare Less rare

*Rare Frequent

Frequent Less freq

*Rare Less rare

Frequent

Summary

• In general: perception mirrors production

• Frequency certainly plays a role for perception

• Grammaticality less so, or at least masked by salience

Directions for further research

• More direct on-line measures

• How do people deal with contact between variants?

• Effects of perceiving the other variant

• Role of experience with other variant

The End

Om

te deletion om

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

te deletion om

Durvente deletion durven

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

1 2 3 4 5 6

te deletion durven

te deletion beginnin

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

1 2 3 4 5 6

te deletionbeginnin

te deletion proberen

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

1 2 3 4 5 6

te deletionproberen