1932

Abstract

Dialectometry applies computational and statistical analyses within dialectology, making work more easily replicable and understandable. This survey article first reviews the field briefly in order to focus on developments in the past five years. Dialectometry no longer focuses exclusively on aggregate analyses, but rather deploys various techniques to identify representative and distinctive features with respect to areal classifications. Analyses proceeding explicitly from geostatistical techniques have just begun. The exclusive focus on geography as explanation for variation has given way to analyses combining geographical, linguistic, and social factors underlying language variation. Dialectometry has likewise ventured into diachronic studies and has also contributed theoretically to comparative dialectology and the study of dialect diffusion. Although the bulk of research involves lexis and phonology, morphosyntax is receiving increasing attention. Finally, new data sources and new (online) analytical software are expanding dialectometry’s remit and its accessibility.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124930
2015-01-14
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/1/1/annurev-linguist-030514-124930.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124930&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Auer P, Hinskens F. 1996. The convergence and divergence of dialects in Europe. New and not so new developments in an old area. Sociolinguistica 10:1–30 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aurrekoetxea G, Fernandez-Aguirre K, Rubio J, Ruiz B, Sánchez J. 2013. ‘DiaTech’: a new tool for dialectology. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 28:23–30 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barbiers S, Bennis H, Devos M, de Vogelaer G, van der Ham M. 2005. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects (SAND) Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  4. Bauer R. 2009. Dialektometrische Einsichten: Sprachklassifikatorische Oberflächenmuster und Tiefenstrukturen im lombardo-venedischen Dialektraum und in der Rätoromania. St. Martin in Thurn, Italy: Ist. Ladin Micurà de Rü
  5. Black P. 1976. Multidimensional scaling applied to linguistic relationships. Cah. Inst. Linguist. Louvain 3:43–92 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bloomfield L. 1933. Language New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston
  7. Borin L, Saxena A. 2013. Approaches to Measuring Linguistic Differences Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter
  8. Britain D. 2002. Space and spatial diffusion. The Handbook of Variation and Change Chambers JK, Trudgill P, Schilling-Estes N. 603–37 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  9. Chambers JK, Trudgill P. 1998. Dialectology Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2nd ed..
  10. Chun Y, Griffith DA. 2013. Spatial Statistics and Geostatistics: Theory and Applications for Geographic Information Science and Technology Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  11. De Vriend F, Boves L, van Hout R, Swanenberg J. 2010. Visualization as a research tool for dialect geography using a geo-browser. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 26:17–34 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dhillon I. 2001. Co-clustering documents and words using bipartite spectral graph partitioning. Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery269–74 New York: ACM [Google Scholar]
  13. Eisenstein J, O’Connor B, Smith NA, Xing EP. 2010. A latent variable model for geographic lexical variation. Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processes Li J, Màrquez L. 1277–87 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  14. Embleton S. 1993. Multidimensional scaling as a dialectometric technique: outline of a research project. Contributions to Quantitative Linguistics Köhler R, Rieger B. 267–76 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  15. Embleton S, Uritescu D, Wheeler ES. 2013. Defining dialect regions with interpretations: advancing the multidimensional scaling approach. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 28:13–22 [Google Scholar]
  16. Falck O, Heblich S, Lameli A, Südekum J. 2012. Dialects, cultural identity, and economic exchange. J. Urban Econ. 72:225–39 [Google Scholar]
  17. Geeraerts D, Grondelaers S, Speelman D. 1999. Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat. Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen Amsterdam: Meertens Inst.
  18. Glaser E. 2013. Area formation in morphosyntax. In Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives, ed. P Auer, M Hilpert, A Stukenbrock, B Szmrecsanyi, pp. 195–221. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  19. Goebl H. 1982a. Dialektometrie: Prinzipien und Methoden des Einsatzes der numerischen Taxonomie im Bereich der Dialektgeographie Vienna: Österr. Akad. WissPresents the first book-length introduction to dialectometry.
  20. Goebl H. 1982b. Ansätze zu einer computativen Dialektometrie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung Besch W, Knoop U, Putschke W, Wiegand HE. 778–92 Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  21. Goebl H. 2004. VDM—visual dialectometry. Vorstellung eines dialektometrischen Software-Pakets auf CD-ROM (mit Beispielen zu ALF und Dees 1980). Romanistik und neue Medien Dahmen W, Holtus G, Kramer J, Metzeltin M, Schweickard W, Winkelmann O. 209–41 Tübingen, Ger.: Narr [Google Scholar]
  22. Goebl H. 2006. Recent advances in Salzburg dialectometry. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 21:411–35 [Google Scholar]
  23. Goeman A, Taeldeman J. 1996. Fonologie en morfologie van de Nederlandse dialecten. Een nieuwe materiaalverzameling en twee nieuwe atlasprojecten. Taal Tongval 48:38–59 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gooskens C. 2005. Travel time as a predictor of linguistic distance. Dialectol. Geolinguist. 13:38–62 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gooskens C. 2013. Methods for measuring intelligibility of closely related language varieties. Handbook of Sociolinguisticsed. Bayley R, Cameron R, Lucas C. 195–213 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  26. Gooskens C, Beijering K, Heeringa W. 2009. Phonetic and lexical predictors of intelligibility. Int. J. Humanit. Arts Comput. 2:63–81 [Google Scholar]
  27. Grieve J. 2009. A corpus-based regional dialect survey of grammatical variation in written Standard American English. PhD thesis, North. Ariz. Univ., Flagstaff. 340 pp.
  28. Grieve J. 2011. A regional analysis of contraction rate in written Standard American English. Int. J. Corpus Linguist. 16:514–46 [Google Scholar]
  29. Grieve J. 2012. A statistical analysis of regional variation in adverb position in a corpus of written Standard American English. Corpus Linguist. Linguist. Theory 8:39–72 [Google Scholar]
  30. Grieve J. 2013. A statistical comparison of regional phonetic and lexical variation in American English. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 28:82–107 [Google Scholar]
  31. Grieve J. 2014. A comparison of statistical methods for the aggregation of regional linguistic variation. Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis: Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech Szmrecsanyi B, Wälchli B. 53–88 New York: Walter de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  32. Grieve J, Asnaghi C, Ruette T. 2014. Site-restricted web searches for data collection in regional dialectology. Am. Speech 88:413–40 [Google Scholar]
  33. Grieve J, Speelman D, Geeraerts D. 2011. A statistical method for the identification and aggregation of regional linguistic variation. Lang. Var. Change 23:193–221Presents the first application of geostatistical techniques in dialectometry. [Google Scholar]
  34. Grieve J, Speelman D, Geeraerts D. 2013. A multivariate spatial analysis of vowel formants in American English. J. Linguist. Geogr. 1:31–51 [Google Scholar]
  35. Haag K. 1898. Die Mundarten des oberen Neckar- und Donaulandes (schwäbisch-alemannisches Grenzgebiet: Baarmundarten) Reutlingen, Ger.: Buchdruckerei Hutzler [Google Scholar]
  36. Haimerl E. 2006. Database design and technical solutions for the management, calculation, and visualization of dialect mass data. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 21:437–44 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hale K, Harris D. 1979. Historical linguistics and archaeology. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 9 Ortiz A. 170–77 Washington, DC: Smithsonian Inst. [Google Scholar]
  38. Heeringa W. 2004. Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein distance. PhD thesis, Univ. Groningen. 315 pp Extensively examines the use of edit distance to measure pronunciation differences.
  39. Heeringa W, Hinskens F. 2014. Convergence between dialect varieties and dialect groups in the Dutch language area. In Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis: Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech, ed. B Szmrecsanyi, B Wälchli, pp. 26–52, 452–53. New York: Walter de Gruyter
  40. Heeringa W, Nerbonne J. 2001. Dialect areas and dialect continua. Lang. Var. Change 13:375–400 [Google Scholar]
  41. Heeringa W, Nerbonne J, van Bezooijen R, Spruit MR. 2007. Geografie en inwoneraantallen als verklarende factoren voor variatie in het Nederlandse dialectgebied. Ned. Taalkd. Letterkd. 123:70–82 [Google Scholar]
  42. Heylen K, Ruette T. 2013. Degrees of semantic control in measuring aggregated lexical distances. See Borin & Saxena 2013:353–73 [Google Scholar]
  43. Jäger G. 2014. Phylogenetic inference from word lists using weighted alignment with empirically determined weights. Lang. Dyn. Change 3:245–91 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kessler B. 1995. Computational dialectology in Irish Gaelic. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 60–67. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Presents the first application of edit distance to dialectometry.
  45. Kolly M-J, Leemann A. 2014. Dialäkt Äpp: Communicating dialectology to the public—crowdsourcing dialects from the public. Trends in Phonetics and Phonology in German-Speaking Europe Leemann A, Kolly M-J, Dellwo V, Schmid S. In press [Google Scholar]
  46. Kondrak G. 2013. Word similarity, cognation, and translational equivalence. See Borin & Saxena 2013:375–85 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kretzschmar WA Jr. 2010. Language variation and complex systems. Am. Speech 85:263–86 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kretzschmar WA Jr. 2012. Variation in the traditional vowels of the Eastern states. Am. Speech 87:378–90 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kretzschmar WA Jr, Kretzschmar BA, Brockman IM. 2013. Scaled measurement of geographic and social speech data. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 28:173–87 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kruskal J. 1999. An overview of sequence comparison. Time Warps, String Edits and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison Sankoff D, Kruskal J. 1–44 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lameli A. 2013. Strukturen im Sprachraum. Analysen zur arealtypologischen Komplexität der Dialekte in Deutschland Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter
  52. Lauttamus T, Nerbonne J, Wiersma W. 2007. Detecting syntactic contamination in emigrants: the English of Finnish Australians. SKY J. Linguist. 21:273–307 [Google Scholar]
  53. Leinonen T. 2010. An acoustic analysis of vowel pronunciation in Swedish dialects. PhD thesis, Univ. Groningen. 237 pp.
  54. Levenshtein V. 1965. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 163:845–48 [Google Scholar]
  55. List J-M. 2012. Phonetic alignment based on sound classes. New Directions in Logic, Language, and Computation Slavkovik M, Lassiter D. 32–51 Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer [Google Scholar]
  56. List J-M, Moran S. 2013. An open source toolkit for quantitative historical linguistics. Proceedings of the 51st Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics13–18 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  57. Longobardi G, Guardiano C. 2009. Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness. Lingua 119:1679–706 [Google Scholar]
  58. Maguire W, McMahon A, Heggarty P, Dediu D. 2010. The past, present, and future of English dialects: quantifying convergence, divergence, and dynamic equilibrium. Lang. Var. Change 22:69–104 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mathussek A. 2013. Sprachgrenzen und Sprachräume im Mittelfranken. Handbuch zum Sprachatlas von Mittelfranken. Dokumentation und Auswertung Munske HH, Mathussek A. 244–72 Heidelberg, Ger.: Winter [Google Scholar]
  60. Montemagni S, Wieling M, de Jonge B, Nerbonne J. 2013. Synchronic patterns of Tuscan phonetic variation and diachronic change: evidence from a dialectometric study. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 28:157–72 [Google Scholar]
  61. Nerbonne J. 2006. Identifying linguistic structure in aggregate comparison. Lit. Linguist. Comput. 21:463–76 [Google Scholar]
  62. Nerbonne J. 2009. Data-driven dialectology. Lang. Linguist. Compass 3:175–98Briefly summarizes dialectometry’s motivations and goals. [Google Scholar]
  63. Nerbonne J. 2010. Measuring the diffusion of linguistic change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365:3821–28 [Google Scholar]
  64. Nerbonne J. 2013. How much does geography influence language variation?. Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives Auer P, Hilpert M, Stukenbrock A, Szmrecsanyi B. 220–36 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  65. Nerbonne J, Colen R, Gooskens C, Kleiweg P, Leinonen T. 2011. Gabmap—a web application for dialectology. Dialectologia II:spec. issue65–89 [Google Scholar]
  66. Nerbonne J, Heeringa W. 2007. Geographic distributions of linguistic variation reflect dynamics of differentiation. Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base Featherston S, Sternefeld W. 267–97 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  67. Nerbonne J, Heeringa W, Kleiweg P. 1999. Edit distance and dialect proximity. Time Warps, String Edits and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison Sankoff D, Kruskal J. Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  68. Nerbonne J, van Ommen S, Gooskens C, Wieling M. 2013. Measuring socially motivated pronunciation differences. See Borin & Saxena 2013:107–40 [Google Scholar]
  69. Peirsman Y, Geeraerts D, Speelman D. 2010. The automatic identification of lexical variation between language varieties. Nat. Lang. Eng. 16:469–91 [Google Scholar]
  70. Perea M-P. 2013. Dynamic cartography with diachronic data: dialectal stratigraphy. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 28:147–56 [Google Scholar]
  71. Pickl S. 2013. Lexical meaning and spatial distribution. Evidence from geostatistical dialectometry. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 28:63–81 [Google Scholar]
  72. Pickl S, Spettl A, Pröll S, Elspaß S, König W, Schmidt V. 2014. Linguistic distances in dialectometric intensity estimation. J. Linguist. Geogr. In press [Google Scholar]
  73. Prokić J. 2010. Families and resemblances. PhD thesis, Univ. Groningen. 186 pp.
  74. Prokić J, Van de Cruys T. 2010. Exploring dialect phonetic variation using PARAFAC. In Proceedings of the 11th Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Special Interest Group on Computational Morphology and Phonology (ACL-SIGMORPHON), ed. J Heinz, L Cahill, R Wicentowski, pp. 46–53. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
  75. Prokić J, Çöltekin Ç, Nerbonne J. 2012. Detecting shibboleths. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Workshop of LINGVIS and UNCLH, pp. 72–80. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
  76. Prokić J, Cysouw M. 2013. Combining regular sound correspondences and geographic spread. Lang. Dyn. Change 3:147–68 [Google Scholar]
  77. Prokić J, Moran S. 2013. Black box approaches to genealogical classification and their shortcomings. See Borin & Saxena 2013:429–45 [Google Scholar]
  78. Prokić J, Nerbonne J. 2013. Analyzing dialects biologically. Classification and Evolution in Biology, Linguistics and the History of Science: Concepts—Methods—Visualization Fangerau H, Geisler H, Halling T, Martin W. 149–61 Stuttgart, Ger.: Steiner [Google Scholar]
  79. Prokić J, Wieling M, Nerbonne J. 2009. Multiple sequence alignments in linguistics. In Proceedings of the EACL 2009 Workshop on Language Technology and Resources for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education (LaTeCH-SHELT&R), ed. L Borin, P Lendvai, pp. 18–25. Athens: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
  80. Pröll S. 2013. Detecting structures in linguistic maps—fuzzy clustering for pattern recognition in geostatistical dialectometry. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 28:108–18 [Google Scholar]
  81. Pröll S. 2014. Stochastisch gestützte methoden der Dialectdifferenzierung. Dialekte im Kontakt. Beiträge zur 17. Arbeitstagung zur alemannischen Dialektologie Huck D, Bogatto F, Erhart P. Stuttgart, Ger.: Steiner In press [Google Scholar]
  82. Pröll S, Pickl S, Spettl A. 2014. Latente Strukturen in geolinguistischen Korpora. Deutsche Dialekte—Konzepte, Probleme, Handlungsfelder Elmentaler M, Hundt M, JE Schmidt. In press [Google Scholar]
  83. Rama T, Borin L. 2015. Comparative evaluation of string similarity measures for automatic language classification. Sequences in Language and Text Mikros GK, Macutek J. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter In press [Google Scholar]
  84. Ruette T, Speelman D. 2014. Transparent aggregation of variables with individual differences scaling. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 29:89–106 [Google Scholar]
  85. Ruette T, Geeraerts D, Peirsman Y, Speelman D. 2014. Semantic weighting mechanisms in scalable lexical sociolectometry. Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis: Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech Wälchli B, Szmrecsanyi B. 205–30 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  86. Ruette T, Speelman D, Geeraerts D. 2013. Lexical variation in aggregate perspective. Pluricentricity: Linguistic Variation and Sociocognitive Dimensions Soares da Silva A. 95–116 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  87. Rumpf J, Pickl S, Espass S, König W, Schmidt V. 2009. Structural analysis of dialect maps using methods from spatial statistics. Z. Dialectol. Linguist. 76:280–308 [Google Scholar]
  88. Sanders NC. 2010. A statistical method for syntactic dialectometry. PhD thesis, Indiana Univ., Bloomington. 155 pp.
  89. Sanders NC, Chin SB. 2009. Phonological distance measures. J. Quant. Linguist. 16:96–114 [Google Scholar]
  90. Scherrer Y. 2012. Recovering dialect geography from an unaligned comparable corpus. Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Workshop of LINGVIS and UNCLH63–71 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  91. Schneider E. 1988. Qualitative vs. quantitative methods of area delimitation in dialectology: a comparison based on lexical data from Georgia and Alabama. J. Engl. Linguist. 21:175–212 [Google Scholar]
  92. Schwarz C. 2014. Phonologischer Dialektwandel in den alemannischen Basisdialekten Südwestdeutschlands im 20. Jahrhundert. Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Vokalismus Stuttgart, Ger.: Franz-Steiner In press
  93. Séguy J. 1971. La relation entre la distance spatiale et la distance lexicale. Rev. Linguist. Rom. 35:335–57Effectively launches the field of dialectometry. [Google Scholar]
  94. Séguy J. 1973. La dialectométrie dans l’atlas linguistique de la Gascogne. Rev. Linguist. Rom. 37:1–24 [Google Scholar]
  95. Shackleton RG Jr. 2005. English–American speech relationships: a quantitative approach. J. Engl. Linguist. 33:99–159 [Google Scholar]
  96. Shackleton RG Jr. 2007. Phonetic variation in the traditional English dialects. A computational analysis. J. Engl. Linguist. 35:30–102 [Google Scholar]
  97. Snoek C. 2013. Using semantically restricted word-lists to investigate relationships among Athapaskan languages. See Borin & Saxena 2013, pp. 231–48 [Google Scholar]
  98. Snoek C. 2014. Review of Gabmap: doing dialect analysis on the web. Lang. Doc. Conserv. 8:192–208 [Google Scholar]
  99. Speelman D, Geeraerts D. 2008. The role of concept characteristics in lexical dialectometry. Int. J. Humanit. Arts Comput. 2:221–42 [Google Scholar]
  100. Speelman D, Grondelaers S, Geeraerts D. 2003. Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Comput. Humanit. 37:317–37 [Google Scholar]
  101. Spruit MR. 2008. Quantitative perspectives on syntactic variation in Dutch dialects. PhD thesis, Univ. Amsterdam. 157 pp.
  102. Spruit MR, Heeringa W, Nerbonne J. 2009. Associations among linguistic levels. Lingua 119:1624–42 [Google Scholar]
  103. Stanford JN. 2012. One size fits all? Dialectometry in a small clan-based indigenous society. Lang. Var. Change 24:247–78 [Google Scholar]
  104. Streck T, Auer P. 2012. Das raumbildende Signal in der Spontansprache: Dialektometrische Untersuchungen zum Alemannischen in Deutschland. Z. Dialectol. Linguist. 79:149–88 [Google Scholar]
  105. Szmrecsanyi B. 2011. Corpus-based dialectometry: a methodological sketch. Corpora 6:45–76 [Google Scholar]
  106. Szmrecsanyi B. 2013. Grammatical Variation in British English Dialects: A Study in Corpus-Based Dialectometry Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  107. Szmrecsanyi B. 2014. Methods and objectives in contemporary dialectology. Contemporary Approaches to Dialectology: The Area of North, Northwest Russian and Belarusian Vernaculars Seržant IA, Wiemer B. In press. [Google Scholar]
  108. Tamminga M. 2013. Phonology and morphology in Dutch indefinite determiner syncretism: spatial and quantitative perspectives. J. Linguist. Geogr. 1:115–24 [Google Scholar]
  109. Thomson W. 1889. Electrical units of measurement. In Popular Lectures and Addresses, Vol. I, pp. 73–136. London: Macmillan
  110. Trudgill P. 1974. Linguistic change and diffusion: description and explanation in sociolinguistic dialect geography. Lang. Soc. 3:215–46 [Google Scholar]
  111. Valls E, Wieling M, Nerbonne J. 2013. Linguistic advergence and divergence in north-western Catalan: a dialectometric investigation of dialect leveling and border effects. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 28:119–46 [Google Scholar]
  112. Wichmann S, Holman EW, Bakker D, Brown CH. 2010. Evaluating linguistic distance measures. Physica A 389:3632–39 [Google Scholar]
  113. Wieling M. 2012. A quantitative approach to social and geographical dialect variation. PhD thesis, Univ. Groningen. 178 pp Presents a series of methods that aim to integrate dialectology and dialectometry.
  114. Wieling M. 2013. Voices dialectometry at the University of Groningen. Analysing 21st-Century British English: Conceptual and Methodological Aspects of the BBC ‘Voices’ Project Upton C, Davies B. 208–18 London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  115. Wieling M, Heeringa W, Nerbonne J. 2007. An aggregate analysis of pronunciation in the Goeman–Taeldeman–van Reenen project data. Taal Tongval 59:84–116 [Google Scholar]
  116. Wieling M, Bloem J, Mignella K, Timmermeister M, Nerbonne J. 2014a. Automatically measuring the strength of foreign accents in English. Lang. Dyn. Change. In press [Google Scholar]
  117. Wieling M, Margaretha E, Nerbonne J. 2012. Inducing a measure of phonetic similarity from pronunciation variation. J. Phon. 40:307–14 [Google Scholar]
  118. Wieling M, Montemagni S, Nerbonne J, Baayen RH. 2014b. Lexical differences between Tuscan dialects and standard Italian: accounting for geographic and socio-demographic variation using generalized additive mixed modeling. Language In press. [Google Scholar]
  119. Wieling M, Nerbonne J. 2009. Bipartite spectral graph partitioning to co-cluster varieties and sound correspondences in dialectology. Proceedings of the 2009 Workshop on Graph-Based Methods for Natural Language Processes14–22 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  120. Wieling M, Nerbonne J. 2010. Hierarchical spectral partitioning of bipartite graphs to cluster dialects and identify distinguishing features. Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Graph-Based Methods for Natural Language Processes33–41 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  121. Wieling M, Nerbonne J. 2011a. Bipartite spectral graph partitioning for clustering dialect varieties and detecting their linguistic features. Comput. Speech Lang. 25:700–15 [Google Scholar]
  122. Wieling M, Nerbonne J. 2011b. Measuring linguistic variation commensurably. Dialectologia II:spec. issue141–62 [Google Scholar]
  123. Wieling M, Nerbonne J, Baayen RH. 2011. Quantitative social dialectology: explaining linguistic variation geographically and socially. PLOS ONE 6:e23613Presents the first dialectometric analysis combining lexical and social predictors while also taking geography into account. [Google Scholar]
  124. Wieling M, Nerbonne J, Bloem J, Gooskens C, Heeringa W, Baayen RH. 2014c. A cognitively grounded measure of pronunciation distance. PLOS ONE 9:e7574 [Google Scholar]
  125. Wieling M, Prokić J, Nerbonne J. 2009. Evaluating the pairwise string alignment of pronunciations. In Proceedings of the EACL 2009 Workshop on Language Technology and Resources for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education (LaTeCH-SHELT&R), ed. L Borin, P Lendvai, pp. 18–25. Athens: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
  126. Wieling M, Shackleton RG Jr, Nerbonne J. 2013. Analyzing phonetic variation in the traditional English dialects: simultaneously clustering dialects and phonetic features. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 28:31–41 [Google Scholar]
  127. Wieling M, Upton C, Thompson A. 2014d. Analyzing the BBC Voices data: contemporary English dialect areas and their characteristic lexical variants. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit 29:107–117 [Google Scholar]
  128. Wiersma W, Nerbonne J, Lauttamus T. 2011. Automatically extracting typical syntactic differences from corpora. LLC J. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit 26:107–24 [Google Scholar]
  129. Woolhiser C. 2005. Political borders and dialect divergence/convergence in Europe. Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages Auer P, Hinskens F, Kerswill P. 236–62 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  130. Wrede F, Mitzka W, Martin B. 1927. Deutscher Sprachatlas. Auf Grund des von Georg Wenker begründeten Sprachatlas des Deutschen Reichs. Marburg, Ger.: Elwert
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124930
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124930
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error