Thespeechofprofessionalregionalspeakers.

Abstract

ThecurrentpaperexaminestheroleofregiolectsintheDutchoftheNetherlandsandFlanders.Becauseregiolectsaredifficulttostudy,astheymaynotconstitutealinguisticvarietyintheusualsenseoftheword,wefocusonthespeechofprofessionalannouncersemployedbyregionalradiostations.Wegrantthattheirspeechisinfluencedbyalargenumberoffactors,buttheyareearntheirlivingbyreflectingregionalspeechforalargenumberoflistenersandassuchareinterestingfociforstudy.WeexaminetheirspeechinlightofAuerandHinskenss(1996)coneshapedmodelofthespeechcontinuum,whichincludesregiolects,usingLevenshteindistance(Nerbonne&Heeringa,2009).Wethusintroduceatechniqueintosociolinguisticswhichhasbeenusedextensivelyindialectology.WethenmeasurethedifferencebetweenregiolectsandstandardDutchontheonehandandbetweenregiolectsandthelocalspeechoftownsandvillagesintheregiontheyrepresentontheother.Weareinterestedindisentanglingtheissueofwhetherregiolectsfunctionasstandardlanguageswithinmorerestrictedareasorwhethertheyserverathertomarkregionalidentity.ThenovelcontributionsofthepaperarefirstitsexaminationofthespeechofprofessionalregionalspeakersinlightofAuerandHinskenssmodelandsecond,itsintroductionofanimplementedandvalidatedmeasureoflinguisticdifferenceintothesociolinguisticdiscussionofregionalspeech,whichisfraughtwithnotionsoflinguisticdistance.

1.Introduction

IntheNetherlandsandFlanders,Dutchissaidtohavereachedanadvancedstageoflinguisticstandardization(Smakman,2006).AsHaugen(1966)states,thelaststagesofstandardizationareanelaborationofthefunctionofalanguageandtheacceptanceofthislanguagebythecommunity.1Thiselaborationoffunctionmeansthestandardlanguageisusedincontextsinwhichonceaprestigiousforeignlanguagewasused(anexoglossicstandard(Auer,2005),i.e.LatininmedievalEuropeorFrenchintheeraofenlightenmentinmostofEurope).Importantly,virtuallyallspeakershaveatleastapassivemasteryofthestandardlanguage,whichisusedinthemandatoryeducationalsystem,inalargenumberofnationalandbinationalradioandtelevisionbroadcasts,andinmanycivicandgovernmentalfunctions.Thelocaldialectsofindividualtownsandvillages(hence:BASEDIALECTSorBASILECTS)areusedinfewerandfewersituations,andtheirdistinctivepropertiesarethereforebeinglostorLEVELEDextensively.Basedialects,inthisstage,maybereminiscentofoldformsofdress(seeSmakman,2006,foranoverviewandreferences),whichareprotectedasakindofculturalheritage.

Newregionalformsarenonethelessspringingup(Auer,Hinskens&Kerswill,2005),namelyREGIOLECTS,regionallyflavoredspeech,whichmayalsoservenewsociolinguisticfunctions.Ingeneralaregiolectisnotidenticaltoanysinglebasilect,butiseasilyunderstoodwithinitsregionandisidentifiableascomingfromthatregion.Regiolectsareconsideredtoinvolveformsintermediatebetweenbasilectsandstandardlanguage,anassumptionwewillreviewinthecurrentpaper.

Inthispaperregiolectsareexaminedphonetically.Wewishtolocateregiolectsinthespeechcontinuum,inparticularwithrespecttothebasedialectsandthestandard.Weinvestigatehow1Haugen(1966)definesfourstagesofstandardization:(1)selectionofform,(2)codificationofform,(3)elaborationoffunctionand(4)acceptancebythecommunity.

regiolectsrelatetobasedialectsandthestandard,andhowwelltheyrepresenttheirregion.InourexaminationweproceedfromAuerandHinskenss(1996)conicalmodel,showninfig.1.1(whichthey,incidentallyattributetoChambersandTrudgill,11980,Chap.1).ThisfigureshowsthelanguagesituationwhichisassumedtoexistintheNetherlandsandFlanders.Thereisalayerofbasedialectsatthebaseofthecone(wherethehorizontalplanerepresentsregionalheterogeneity);thereisastandardatthetopofthecone(theverticalaxisrepresentstypesofspeechdifferentiationwithrespecttosocialstatusandcontext);andthereareintermediatevarietieswithinathreedimensionalsociogeographiccontinuum,whereweexplicitlydonotattempttoidentifyaspecificheightorevenpotentiallyinclinedplanethatmustcontainregiolects.Thevariabilityoftheseintermediateformsismeanttobesuggestedbyarrows.

Fig.1.1ModelfromAuer(2005),coneshapedspeechcontinuumreflectingDIAGLOSSICsituations,withbasedialects,regiolects,regionalstandardsandthespoken/writtenstandard.Theconvergenceofbasedialectstoeachotherandtowardthestandardleadstointermediate,regional,varieties.

Ourprimarygoalinthispaperistoexaminethespeechofcertainprofessionalrepresentativesofregionalspeech,namelytheannouncersatregionalradiostations.Sincetheyarepaidprofessionalspeakersofregionallycoloredspeech,itisinterestingtoaskwheretheirspeechfallsinAuerandHinskenssconicalmodel.

AsecondgoalistosuggesthowsociolinguisticdiscussionsofthesortAuerandHinskens(1996)andAuer(2005)exemplifymightbenefitfromquantitativeassessmentsofsociolinguisticconjecturesandpostulates.Thisshouldbeanaturalstepgiventhegeometricnatureofthemodel,andalsogivendiscussionsaboutit,whichaboundtoreferencestooneformofspeechbeingclosertoanother,inreferencestothespacebetweenvarieties,andindiscussionsofhowagivenspeechformmustbeunderstoodastheconvergenceofoneformtowardanother.Agreatdealofthisdiscussionappealstoanintuitivenotionoflinguisticdistancewhichitisadvantageoustooperationalize.WereturntothisinSection5below.

2. Regiolectsandspeakers

Inthissectionwefirstreviewtheliteratureonregiolectstocompileexpectationsonthelinguisticqualitiesregiolectsshouldhaveandthensecond,considerhowoneistostudyregiolectsi.e.,howtoobtainsamplesofregiolectalspeech.

2.1Thesociolinguisticsofregiolectalformation

Ascanbeseeninfig.1.1,weusethenotionofdialectforalanguagevarietyboundedabovebyarelated(endoglossic,seeAuer,2005)standard.Betweenthedialectallevelandthestandardinthetopofthecone,acontinuumisimagined,representingotherregionalvarieties.

Adiaglossicrepertoireischaracterizedbyintermediatevariantsbetweenstandardand(base)dialect.Thetermregiolect(orregionaldialect)isoftenusedtorefertotheseintermediateforms,althoughtheimplicationthatwearedealingwithaseparatevarietyisnotnecessarilyjustified.(Auer,2005)

WeshallreturnbelowtoAuersimportantqualificationthatregiolectsmaynotbeseparatevarieties,2butwefirstwishtocollectsomethoughtsonregiolects.WhatAuercallsintermediateforms(regiolects)arepresumedtobemorestandardthandialects,butmoreregionallycoloredthanthestandard.Regiolectsmayariseduetovarioussocialforces,especiallythroughaprocessofdialectleveling(koineisation)andstandardization.Sobrero(1996),analyzingthemodernItaliansituation,distinguishesthreetypesofkoineisation(seealsoAuer,HinskensandKerswill,2005):

1. Activekoineisation:Thespreadofakoineofastrongurbancentreintotheneighboringterritory(e.g.MilaneseandNeapolitan).

2. Passivekoineisation:Dialectaldiversityisleveledundertheinfluenceofthestandard.3. Reinforcementandexpansion:Horizontallevelingdecreasesdistinctivenessonalocallevelin

favourofdistinctivenessonaregionallevel,whichmeanstheleveledregionalvarietiesaremoredistinctivefromeachotherthantheoriginaltransitionzonedialects.

Infig.2.1thesethreetypesofkoineisationarevisualized.Auer,HinskensandKerswill(2005)describetheformationofkoineasstructuralconvergencebetweencloselyrelatedlinguisticsystems,eventuallyleadingtothestabilisationofsomecompromisevariety.AccordingtoTrudgill(1986),thiskoineisationdoesnotremoveallvariationandtheremainingvariationisassignednewfunctions.Thus,koineisationresultsinareallocationoflinguisticandextralinguisticfunctionstodifferentvariants.

2Auers(2005)remarkisanticipatedbyAuerandHinskenss(1996:6)observationthatdialectologistsandlinguiststendtobesomewhatrashinassigningthestatusofavarietytoacertainwayofspeaking

Fig.2.1Threetypesofkoineisation,afterSobrero(1996).Thedottedcirclesrepresenttheresultofthekoineisation.

Infig.2.1atheactivespreadofanurbancentreincreasesthehomogeneityofregionalspeech,becauseasinglevarietyisusedinalargergeographicalregion.Infig.2.1b,thestandardinfluencesthedialectalvarieties.Becauseallthebasedialectsareinfluencedbythesamestandard,dialectalvariationbecomessmaller.Thesituationinfig.2.1c.iscomparabletothesituationinfig.2.1b.,inthesensethatdialectsconverge,butinthissituationthelevelingresultsfromtheirconvergingtoeachotherandisnotimposedbythestandardorbyadominant(metropolitan)center.Theresultisthatthehomogeneitywithinaregionincreases,whichatthesametimeresultsinmoredistinctivenessbetween(some)varietiesonaninterregionallevel.Thefigureshowsthatdialectconvergenceanddivergencetakeplacesimultaneously.Howell(2006)givesaconciseoverviewofliteratureontheinfluenceofimmigrationonurbanDutchkoineisationandadvocatesabottomupview.HeshowsthatawidevarietyofDutchdialects,throughimmigration,influencedtheurbanDutchvernaculars,whichcontrastswiththeviewthatprestigiousdialectsexpanded.Insum,dialectconvergenceistheresultofcomplicatedinteractions,normallyleadingtoanincreaseinhomogeneityontheregionallevel.

FollowingAuer(2005),wemayassumeregiolectsarenotmerelyaproductofkoineisation,butalsoofstandardization(althoughtheseinfluencesmaybeintertwined,seefig.2.1b,wherekoineisationisinfluencedbythestandard).InthestageofstandardizationthatNetherlandicandBelgianDutchhavereached,theinfluenceofthestandardisofgreatimportance.

VanCoetsem(1988)describesfoursortsofunidirectionalinteractions(advergence,aspositedbyMattheier,1996)whichresultindialectsbecomingmorelikethestandard.VanCoetsemfocusesonthesituationoflanguageusers,inparticularwhetherasituationprimarilyinvolvesspeakersofbasedialectswhoadoptstandardformswhilemaintainingtheirowndialect.Inthissortofsituationthedialectspeakeractivelyborrowsfromthestandard.Ontheotherhand,VanCoetsemalsoobservedspeakersofthestandardlanguage(orotherdialects)whoshifttolocaldialect,e.g.asaconsequenceofmovingtothedialectarea.Inthissituationtheimmigrantspeakertypicallyimposesotherfeaturesontothe(passive)dialect.VanCoetsemrecognizedthattheprocesseswereonlyseparateideally,andthatconcretecontactsituationsofteninvolveseveralfactors.VanCoetsem(1988)conjecturedthatregionalvarietiestypicallyevolveinsituationsinwhichthedialectistheactiverecipient,takingup(lexical)itemsfromthestandard.

Ifwesummarizethedescriptionsofregiolectwehavenotedthusfar,wecansaythatregiolectsarevarietiesonacontinuumbetweendialectsandstandard,resultingfromaprocessofkoineisationandstandardization,includingimpositionofthestandardondialects.Regiolectsarethus(interalia)phoneticallydistinctfromthestandard,but,throughleveling,representativeofalargerregionthanabasedialect.What,then,isthesociolinguisticroleofthisregiolectintheregion?

Sincearegiolectisamorestandardizedvarietyofadialect,itoughttobeintelligibleinalargerregionthanabasicdialectwouldbe.Theregiolect,seenfromthisperspective,fulfillsacommunicativefunction.Butdialectswithinoneregionarecloselyrelatedandmostlymutuallyintelligible,whichobviatesthe(communicative)needforaregiolectinintraregionalcommunication.Ontheotherhand,aregiolect,asaregionallycoloredvarietyofthestandardallowsspeakerstodisplaytheirregionalloyaltyandregionalidentitywithoutriskingeffectivecommunication.ThismaybecomparabletoasituationVanCoetsem(1988)describes,wherethestandardabsorbsphoneticfeaturesoftheregionalvariety.Oneenvisagesadynamicinwhicharegiolectisintelligibleinalargerareathanabasedialect,andwhereregionalcolorinpronunciationallowsthespeakertoexpressaffiliationwiththeregion.Auer(2005)describesregiolectsasasociolinguistictoolinasimilarway:

Theintermediateformsoftenfulfillasociolinguisticfunctionbyenablingtheiruserstoactout,intheappropriatecontexts,anidentitywhichcouldnotbesymbolisedthroughthebasedialects(whichmayhaverural,backwardishornoneducatedconnotations)northroughthenationalstandard(whichmaysmackofformalityandunnaturalnessand/orbeunabletoexpressregionalaffiliation).(Auer,2005)

Thetwoviewsdifferinthefunctiontheyattributetoregiolects.Aregiolectproducedbykoineisation,i.e.theconvergenceofdialectstowardeachotherandtowardthestandardmayfacilitatecommunication,whileontheotherhandaregiolectasameansofexpressingsolidaritywitharegion,evenregionalidentity,functionsprimarilyasmeansofregionalidentification(socialmarking).Notethatthesetwofunctionscorrespondtodifferentdirectionsfromwhichregiolectsariseintheconeoflinguisticvariation.Thefirst,communicativelymotivatedforceisattractedbythestandardandrepresentsanupwarddynamicwithintheconeofvariation,whilethesecond,sociallymotivatedforce,reactstothestandardandoughttobeseenasproceedingdownwardlyinthecone,fromthestandardtotheregionalvarieties.Aregiolectmaywellhavebothfunctions,andwhichfunctionismostimportantmaydependonthelevelofstandardizationofalanguage.Ifthestandardlanguageisacceptedforallusagecontexts(Smakman,2006;Haugen,1966),thentheregiolecthasnocommunicativefunctionatallandmaybeusedonlytoexpressregionalaffiliation.Inasituationwhereregional(dialectal)speechisstillthelanguageoffirstlanguageacquisition,thereisnoreasontoseetheuseofregiolectsasareactiontostandardization,butratherasameansofcommunicationthatislessformalthanthestandard.

2.2 Regiolectalspeech

Ifwewishtostudyregiolectalspeech,weneedtoobtainsamplesofit,concrete,representativeexamples.Thetaskisnotasstraightforwardinthestudyofregiolectsasitisinotherbranchesofvariationistlinguistics,whichfamouslyhavetheirownchallengeswithrespecttodatacollection,aswitnessedbyLabovs(1972)discussionoftheparadoxoftheobserver.ThereasonforouraddedcautionishintedatinaqualifyingclauseinAuersdefinition,whichwerepeatforconvenience:

Adiaglossicrepertoireischaracterizedbyintermediatevariantsbetweenstandardand(base)dialect[]althoughtheimplicationthatwearedealingwithaseparatevarietyisnotnecessarilyjustified.(Auer,2005,emphasisaddedSvOetal.)3

Ifregiolectsareindeednotvarieties,thatis,relativelystablecollectionsofspeechhabitsthatserveasameansofcommunicationinawelldefinedcommunity,thenregiolectsaremoreephemeralmannersofspeakingthatareintermediatebetweenbasedialectandstandard.Auersadmonishingclausesuggeststhatregiolectalspeechmannersmightbeasortofcompromisebetweenbasedialectsandstandardsthatiswithinthecompetenceofmostdiaglossic(standarddialect)speakers.Ifthisiscorrect,thenweshallneverencountermonolingualspeakersofregiolect,nor,indeed,nativespeakers.Thechallengeistofindauthenticandcommensurablesamplesofregiolectalspeech.

Amostfortunatecircumstanceinlightofthesepotentialproblemsistheexistenceofregionalradiostationsandregionalprograms.Thesestationsaimtoserveareasmuchlargerthansingletownsorvillages,andtheyregularlytransmitentireprogramsinregionallycoloredspeechwiththeaimofreachingaudiencesthroughoutentireregions.Theyhaveexistedforseveraldecadesnow,andthereforeappeartosatisfyaneed,which,moreover,isrecognizedcommercially.Whileitmaybetrue,asAuertangentiallysuggests,thatitwouldbeincorrecttoviewregiolectsasvarieties,therearenonethelessprofessionalspeakersoflocallycoloredlanguagewhoaimtoreachwiderangesofdialectspeakersinagivenregion.Ourstrategyinprobingtheregiolectallandscapewillthereforebetoseekoutsuchspeakersandtoinvestigatetheirspeechasregiolectallyrepresentative.

Itwouldofcoursebepreferabletorecordmoresuchprofessionalregiolectalspeakersforeachregion,buttherearenotmany,andtheyareprofessionalswhoexpectcompensationfortheirspeech.Wearefortunateinhavingoneperregion,butweconcedethatmorewouldbebeneficial.

Usingthespeechofradioannouncersasrepresentativeofregiolectalspeech,weshallexaminethequestionsofwhereregiolectalspeechfitswithinAuersconeofvariation,whetheritfaithfullyrepresentsthespeechofitsregion,andwhetheritappearstobemotivatedmorebyaneedtofacilitatecommunicationorbyawishtoexpressregionalidentity.Evenifitturnsoutthatthespeechofthebroadcastersisnotrepresentativeofregiolectalspeechingeneral,theanalysisbelowwillbeinterestingifitshowstherangethatispossibleforprofessionalregiolectspeakers.

2.3 TheNetherlandsandFlanders

BothintheNetherlandsandFlanders,Dutchisthestandardlanguage,butStandardNetherlandicDutchisnottheexactsamelanguageasStandardBelgianDutch.Eventhoughtheformalstandard(written)doesnotdiffermuchbetweenBelgianandNetherlandicDutch,thespokenstandardshavephoneticallydiverged(vandeVelde,1996),resultingintwoseparate(butcloselyrelated)standardvarieties.Thesevarietiesmaybeverysimilar,buttheyhaveevolvedseparately.TheEightyYearsWarstartinginthe16thcenturypoliticallyisolatedFlandersfromtheNetherlands,stallingthestandardizationofDutchinFlanders,whereFrenchassumedmanysupraregionalcommunicativefunctions(Grondelaersetal.2001).Inthe19thand20thcenturyDutchwasagaininstalledastheofficialstandardinFlanders,leadingtoanewimpulsetostandardization.TherewasnoBelgianDutchstandard,sotheNetherlandicDutchstandardwasacceptedasthenorm(Geeraerts,2001).3ThisechoesanadmonitionbyAuerandHinskens(1996:6)thatvariationiststendtoberashinassigningthestatusofavarietytoacertainwayofspeaking.

Whatensuedfromthisinterruptedstandardization,iswhatGrondelaersetal.(2001)refertousingthediachronicconvergencehypothesis(1)andthesynchronicstratificationhypothesis(2).Thesehypothesesrespectivelyexpress:

1) DiachronicconvergenceofBelgianDutchtowardsNetherlandicDutch,causedbyanexplicitnormativeorientationtowardNetherlandicDutch

2) Alargersynchronicdistancebetweenregionalandsupraregionalspeech,duetothelateonsetstandardization

ThefirsthypothesisreferstothechoiceofNetherlandicDutchasthenormforstandardizationofBelgianDutch,leadingtoadiachronicconvergence.BelgianDutchandNetherlandicDutchareassumedtohaveseparatespeechcontinua,butsimilarstandards.TheBelgianDutchstandardisdifferentfromtheNetherlandicDutchstandard,butbecauseofitsnormativeorientationonNetherlandicDutchduringthe19thand20thcentury,thestandardsareverysimilar.

Forthecurrentresearchwecanonlytestthesecondhypothesissinceourmaterialonlyallowsustoinvestigatethesynchronicsituation.ThesynchronicstratificationhypothesispredictsmoredissimilaritiesbetweenstandardandregionalspeechinFlandersthanintheNetherlands(seealsoGeeraerts,2001).Asstandardizationhassetinatalaterstage,dialectlossisexpectedtobelessadvancedthanintheNetherlands.Furthermore,theimpositionofamoreorlessexternalstandard(NetherlandicDutch)asthenormmakesthestandardlesssimilartoregionalspeech.Weexpect,inotherwords,tofinddifferencesbetweentheNetherlandicandBelgianDutchspeechcontinuum.

InadditiontothehypothesisthattheStandardandbasedialectsdiffermoreinBelgiumthanintheNetherlands,wewishtoexaminetheroleoftheregiolectswhethertheyfunctionprimarilyaskoinorasexpressionsofregionalidentity.WedevelopthesehypothesesinSection3(below).

3. Hypothesesabouttheroleofregiolects

Inthecurrentpaper,thephoneticproximityofregiolectstostandardanddialectisusedtoinvestigatethefunctionofregiolects.Itisexpectedthatpronunciationdissimilaritiesareanimportantdifferencebetweenregiolectandstandard.Thisisirrespectiveofwhetheroneproceedsfromtheassumptionthataregiolectisaregionalvariety,absorbinglexicalitemsfromthestandard,whosepronunciationthenpullstheaggregateregiolectmeasurementtowardthestandardorfromtheassumptionthataregiolectisavarietyofthestandardwhichhasabsorbedphoneticcoloration.Thelatterlikewisecontributestopronunciationdifferences.WecomputepronunciationdissimilaritiesbytheuseoftheLevenshteindistance(seebelow).Pronunciationdifferencesbetweenwordsareexpressedinadistance,anddistancesbetweenthemanywordsinasampletogetherconstitutethesocalleddialectdistancebetweentwovarieties.

ForthecurrentstudythesedistancesmaybeanalyzedtorevealmoreabouttheroleofregiolectsintheNetherlandsandFlanders.Wedistillourinterestsconcerningthefunctionofregiolectalspeechtothefollowingquestions:

1)Arethebasedialectsintheregionreallyclosertotheregiolectthantheyaretothestandard,sothattheregiolectmightbeeasiertouseandthusofferbenefitsincommunicationintheregion?Andhowdifferentarethestandardandregiolectascandidatekoins(againseenfromthepointofviewofthebasedialects)?

2)Istheregiolectlinguisticallyintermediatebetweenbasedialectsandstandardastheconicalmodelpredicts? Thisquestionisnotthesameasthatabove,aswelookattherelativepositionsofallthreelanguageforms,regiolect,standardandbasilects.Thequestionwouldbethesameifweknewthatregiolectalspeechwasintermediatebetweenbasedialectsandthestandard,butthisisapointwewishtoexamine.Wearethuscheckingonwhethertheregiolectisemphasizingnonstandardnessevenmorethanthebasedialects,perhapsduetoitsfunctionindisplayingregionalidentity.

3)Istheregiolectaloyalrepresentativeoftheregion?

Istheregiolectclosertobasedialectsinitsownregionthantootherbasedialects?

Ourfirstquestions(1and2)areaimedatverifyingwhethertheconicalmodelinfactobtains,atidentifyingpossibleinstanceswhereitdoesnot,andteasingapartthefacilitating,communicativefunctionoftheregiolectfromitsfunctionasavehicleforexpressingregionalsolidarityandregionalidentity.

Wethinkthethirdquestionwillmostlikelybeansweredpositively,sincetherecanbenomotivationforadisloyalregiolect,butweaddthisquestionpartlyinviewofoursamplesofregiolects,thespeechofradioannouncers.Iftheyareperformingpoorly,e.g.,simplyaddingregionalismsabitrandomlytotheirspeech,thentheymayturnouttorepresentgeneralregionalspeechbetterthantheyrepresenttheregionalspeechoftheirownregion.Wewanttocheckthisout.Inanycaseitisanontrivialtaskperhapsnotpossibleatallformanyspeakerstoplaceonesspeechbetweenthestandardandalargenumberofbasedialects.Soweshalltestthis.

Wealsotriedtoaskwhetheragivenregiolectisafairrepresentativeinitsregion,andnote.g.,aslightlymorestandardvariantofabasedialectfromadominantcityortownintheregionorfromtheplacewherethespeakercomesfrom.Finally,however,weshallnottestfairnessstrictly,aswehavenotfoundawaytodothisquantitatively.Wefirsthypothesizedthatforagivenregion,wemightmeasureallthepairwisedistancesnotonlyamongallthebasedialectsbutalsobetweentheregiolectandallthebasedialects,notinginparticularthemeandistancetothebasedialects(foreachbasedialectandfortheregiolect).Ifwethencompared,foreachbasedialectandfortheregiolect,itsmeandistancetotheotherbasedialects,wemightseewheretheregiolectisplacedinthedistributionofmeandifferences.Butwegavethisideaupduetotheproblemthatvariousregiolectsmightfairlyrepresentaregionatdifferentaveragedistancesfromthebasedialects(astheimaginaryregiolectbecomescloserandclosertothestandard).

Asnotedinsection2.3(above),theroleofregiolectsinFlandersandtheNetherlandsmaydiffer,duetolatestandardizationofBelgianDutch,whichmakesthespeechcontinuuminFlandersdifferentfromthespeechcontinuumintheNetherlands.DutchintheNetherlandsmaybesostandardizedthatregionalspeechisameansoflinguisticidentificationwiththeregion,whileregiolectsinFlandersmaystillbeaformofregionalcommunication,comparabletothefunctionbasedialectsoncefulfilled.Also,thelatestandardizationarguablyresultedinabroaderanddeeperspeechcontinuuminFlandersthanintheNetherlands.ThismeansthatweshouldtakecaretoexamineourvariousmeasurementsseparatelyintheNetherlandsandFlanderswithrespecttotheresearchquestionsas

statedabove.Weexpect(1)basedialectsintheNetherlandstobemoresimilarlinguisticallytotheStandardandregiolect(lessverticalvariationthaninFlanders),(2)basedialectsintheNetherlandstobeclosertoeachother(lesshorizontalvariationthaninFlanders),(3)regiolectsintheNetherlandstobeclosertoeachotherthanregiolectsinFlanders.

4. Material

5.1.Geographicregions

Inthisstudyregionsaremainlydefinedbyprovinces,whicharegovernmentalentities(Impeetal.,2008).TheregionswefocusonaretheprovincesAntwerp(FL),Brabant(FL),BelgianLimburg(FL),WestFlanders(FL),NorthernBrabant(NL),NetherlandicLimburg(NL)andGroningen(NL)andtheagglomerationRandstad(NL).

Fig.5.1.MapoftheNetherlandsandFlanders,indicatingtheregions.

Theareaschosendifferwithrespecttotheirpoliticalandeconomicalimportanceintheirrespectivecountries.TheregionsBrabantandRandstadarethemostcentralareas(bothcontainingthecapitalcity4)inFlandersandtheNetherlands,respectively.Besidestheregionseconomicandculturalimportancebothregionshavedominantpositionsinthemediaintheirrespectivecountries.The

4Theworkingassumptionisthattheprestigeofaregionincreaseswhenthecapitalcityofacountryissituatedinorneartheregion

regionsWestFlanders,BelgianLimburg,GroningenandDutchLimburg,ontheotherhand,areperipheralareas,wheredialectallanguageuseisbetterpreservedthanintheotherareas.TheregionsAntwerpandNorthernBrabantareconsideredintermediateareas:theyareclosertothecentralregionthantheperipheralareas.

TheRandstadinrealityisaregionconsistingof2provinces(UtrechtandSouthHolland)andapartoftheprovinceofNorthHolland.SincetheRandstadisanagglomerationofcitiesintheNetherlands,crossingbordersofprovinces,theseprovincescannot,forthepurposeofthisstudy,betakenapartasseparateregions.Becausetheregionsmentionedabovearedefinedbyprovinceborders(notdialectalareas),thebordersoftheRandstadaredefinedbystateconventionsaswell,followingVROM(ministryofhousing,spatialplanningandtheenvironment,Randstadmonitor2006.

5.2 Pronunciationdata

Wewishtocomputethephoneticdistancebetweendialects,regiolectsandstandard,whichmakesitnecessarytousepronunciationsfromseveralsources.RegiolectalpronunciationswereselectedfromaprojectonmutualintelligibilityinTheNetherlandsandFlanderswhereeightmaleregionalradiocommentators(fourfromeachcountry)pronounced300wordsintheirregionalvariety(Impeetal.,2008).Everyannouncerwasbetweentheageof27and34atthetimeoftesting,andborn,bredandstilllivingintheregiontheyrepresent.Thespeakersreportedusingbothregionallycoloredandstandardspeechregularlyfortheirpersonalandprofessionalends.Theannouncerswereaskedtopronouncethewordsinisolation,withoutmakinglexicalchangestothewords.Thisallowsustocomparethepronunciationswiththepronunciationsofthebasedialectrespondents,whohadthesametask(seebelow).Theinstructiongiventothespeakerswastouseinformalregionallyaccentedspeech,comprehensibleinthespeakersentireregion.Allpronunciationsweretranscribedbythesameperson(thefirstauthor,whosenativelanguageisNetherlandicDutch).Thetranscriptionswerediscussedwithasecondtranscriberatanearlystage,toensureconsistencyandcorrectness.ForthepurposeofthecurrentstudytheBelgianDutchtranscriptionswerecheckedbyatranscriberwhosefirstlanguageisBelgianDutch.

Dialectalpronunciationsin318placeslocatedintheeightregionsweretakenfroma562wordsubsetoftheGoemanTaeldemanVanReenenProject(GTRP;Goeman&Taeldeman,1996).ThewordswereselectedbyWielingetal.(2007)foracomputationalanalysisofDutchdialectpronunciation,wherewordsthatwerespokeninisolationwerefavoredinordertofacilitatetheidentificationandextractionofthenecessarymaterial.Weusedtheoverlappingwordsinthetwodatasetsforthecomparisoninthisstudy(37words:2nouns,17adjectivesand18verbs).Wetranscribedthestandardpronunciationofthese37wordsourselvesaccordingtoGussenhoven(2007;Dutch)andVerhoeven(2005;BelgianDutch).Thelistofwordsusedintheanalysiscanbefoundintheappendix.

Theregiolect,StandardandBelgiandialecttranscriptionswereallbasedonthesamesubsetofIPAsoundsegmentsconsistingof55sounds.AsreportedbyWielingetal.2007,theNetherlandicdialecttranscriptionsintheGTRPweretranscribedusingamuchlargersetofabout80sounds.TomakethesetranscriptionsmorecomparableweautomaticallymergedthesoundsoccurringonlyintheNetherlandictranscriptionswiththemostsimilarsoundsoccurringinthesmallerset.Thisapproach

wasproposedanddiscussedindetailbyWielingetal.(2009).Theprocedureofautomaticallydeterminingsounddistances(neededtodeterminethemostsimilarsounds)isalsodiscussedinthenextsection.

5. Method

Aswenotedintheabstract,wesuggestaswellthatthispapermaycontributeaquantitativeperspectivetothissociolinguisticdiscussion.Wenotedfurtherinthediscussionoftheliterartureonregiolectsthatthesociolinguisticdiscussionconcerningregiolectsrepeatedlyreferstothedistancesbetweenvarietieswithoutactuallyattemptingtodefinethatnotionprecisely.Wesuggestinthispaperthatadialectometrictechniqueforassessingthedifferencesbetweenvarietiesquantitativelymayservetodefineoneaspectoflinguisticdistance,i.e.pronunciationdistance.Sinceitisalsoreadilyimplemented,Levenshteindistanceeffectivelymeasureslinguisticdistancesforsociolinguisticpurposes.Ourcontentioniisthusthatwearenowinapositiontooperationalizethenotionlinguisiticdistanceeffectively.Wefirstexplainhowthisisdoneandnoteworkthathasbeendonetovalidatethemeasure.

Todeterminethephoneticdistancebetweendialects,regiolectsandstandard,weusedamodifiedversionoftheLevenshteindistance(Levenshtein,1965).TheregularLevenshteindistancecountstheminimumnumberofinsertions,deletionsandsubstitutionstotransformonestringintotheother.Forexample,theLevenshteindistanceoftwoDutchdialectalpronunciationsofthewordtobind,

[bndn]and[bind],is3:

bndn insert 1

bndn substitutei/ 1

bindn deleten 1

bind

3

Thecorrespondingalignmentis:

b n d n

b i n d

1 1 1

TheregularLevenshteindistancedoesnotdistinguishvowelsandconsonantsandmaywellalignavowelwithaconsonant.Toenforcelinguisticallysensiblealignments(anddistances),weaddedasyllabicityconstrainttotheLevenshteindistancesothatitdoesnotalignvowelswith(nonsonorant)consonants.Inaddition,inthestandardLevenshteinprocedures,ifonesoundisreplacedbyanother

inthealignment,theLevenshteindistanceisalwaysincreasedbyone.Intuitivelythisdoesnotalwaysmakesense.Asubstitutionof[i]and[y]shouldhaveasmallereffectonthepronunciationdistance

thanasubstitutionof[i]and[]astheformersoundsaremuchmoresimilarthanthelatter.Toreflectthis,wemodifiedtheLevenshteindistancetousemoresensitivesounddistances.WeautomaticallydeterminedthesounddistancesbasedontherelativefrequencywithwhichtheyalignusingLevenshteindistance.Pairsofsoundscooccurringrelativelyfrequentlyareassignedrelativelylowcostsandsoundsoccurringrelativelyinfrequentlyareassignedhighcosts.ThismethodwasintroducedandfoundtobesuperiorovertheLevenshteindistancewithsyllabicityconstraintbyWielingetal.(2009).

Afterdeterminingthedistancebetweeneachpairofpronunciations(transcriptions)ofeachword,thedistancebetweeneverypairofvarieties(e.g.,standardandregiolect,orstandardandadialect)iscalculatedbyaveragingall37worddistances.Thismeanswehaveameanphoneticdistancebetweeneverypairofvarieties,basedonthedifferencebetweenthesevarietiesineachpairofpronunciations.

6. Results

Weaskedseveralquestionspertainingtothestructureandfunctionofregiolects,tryingtotestwhethertheconicalmodelwasrightinalwaysplacingtheregiolectbetweenthestandardandthebasedialects,andwhetheraregiolectisaloyalrepresentativetotheregion.Translatingthesetermstophoneticdistances,thequestionsweaskedwere:

1. Fromthepointofviewofthebasedialects,whichiscloser,theregiolectorthestandard?Onefundamentalassumptionintheconicalmodelisthatallvarietiesareroofedbythestandard.Theregiolecttakesapositionbetweenthebasedialectsandthestandard(seefig.1.1).Thebasedialects,then,havetobeclosertotheregiolectthantothestandard.

2. Istheregiolectphoneticallyintermediatebetweenbasedialectsandstandardastheconical

modelpredicts?Thisquestiondiffersfrom(1)becauseitincludestherelativepositionsofallthreesorts

oflanguageforms:regiolect,standardandbasilects.Weareeffectivelycheckingonwhethertheregiolectisemphasizingnonstandardnessevenmorethanthebasedialects,perhapsduetoitsfunctionindisplayingregionalidentity.Iftheregiolectistofunctionasakoine,facilitatingcommunicationoutsideitsregion,thentheregiolectmustalsobeclosertothestandardthan(most)basilects.Isthisthecase?

3. Istheregiolectmoresimilartobasedialectsinitsownregionthantootherbasedialects?

Weanswerthesequestionsbycomputingthepronunciationdifferences,usingLevenshteindistance,asexplainedabove.Fig7.1displaysthedistancesofbasedialectswithineachregionto(left)thestandardand(right)theregiolectofthesameregion.TheboxandwhiskerplotsinFig.7.1showthemedian(darkcentralhorizontalline)andcentral50%ofdistribution(withintheboxes)ofthedistances.Thelowestandhighestquartilesofthedistributionareshowninthewhiskersofthegraphs.Wehaveaddedadottedlinetoeachgraphshowingthedifferencebetweentheregiolect

andthestandard.Theregionsareorderedbycountry,withtheNetherlandsaboveandBelgianFlandersbelow.Eachrowisthenorderedbycentrality,wheretheregionontheleftisthemostcentralandtheregionontherightthemostperipheral.

WefirstexaminethedatagraphicinFig.7.1(below)inthelightofthefirstquestion,adoptingtheperspectiveofthebasedialectsandaskingwhethertheyareindeedclosertotheregiolectthantothestandard,asAuerandHinskenss(1996)modelpredicts.Intermsofboxandwhiskerplots,weexpecttoseetheplotofdistanceswithrespecttothestandard(theleftboxandwhiskersplotineachoftheeightcharts)tobeabovetheplotofdistanceswithrespecttotheregiolect(theboxandwhiskersplotontheright).AsFig.7.1shows,severalregiolectsindeedconformtothepredictionsoftheconicalmodel:thebasedialectsinDutchLimburg,GroningenandWestFlandersaresignificantlyclosertotheirregiolectsthantothestandard(p

Fig.7.1Phoneticdistances(yaxis)betweenthedialectsinaregionandthestandardandtheregiolectsofeachregion(xaxis)intheNetherlandsandFlanders.Thedottedlineisthedistancebetweenregiolectandstandard.Ineachgraphwecomparethetwoboxandwhiskerdiagrams,oneshowingdistancebetweenbasilectsandthestandard(left)andtheotherdistancesbetweenbasilectsandtheregiolect(right).Wherevertheboxandwhiskersplotontherightislargelylowerthanthatontheleft,thentheregiolectisclosertothebasilectsandisacandidatespeechformforfacilitatingcommunication.Wealsocheckwhethertheregiolectisgenuinelyintermediatebetweenthebasilectsandthestandardbycheckingwhetherthedottedlineisbelowmostofthebasilectsintheboxandwhiskerplotontheleft.OnlytheWestFlandersregiolectsatisfiesbothoftheseconditions,meaningonlytheybehaveastheconicalmodelpredicts.

Thedistancebetweenthestandardandtheregiolectisshownbythedottedlinesintheeightgraphs,whichwenowcomparetotheboxplotsontheleftsideofeachgraph,whichshowthedistributionofdistancesfromthedifferentbasedialectstothestandard.Whereverwefindthedottedlinebelowmostofthebasilectaldistancestothestandard(considerablybelowtheboxintheboxplotsontheleftsideineachpar,sayabovethe95thpercentileinproximity),wefinditplausiblethattheregiolectmaybefacilitatingcommunicatingbetweendialectalspeakersintheregionandspeakersfromoutside,includingstandardspeakers(assumingapositiveanswertoquestiononeabove).Theregiolectsin(Dutch)NorthBrabantandinBelgianBrabantareindeedsubstantiallyclosertothestandardthanthebasedialectsintheirregionsare(top95thpercentileorcloser),andtheregiolectinWestFlandersisclosertothestandardthan90%ofthebasedialectsare.ThiscircumstanceisfavorabletotheputativefunctionoftheseregiolectalspeechformsasfacilitatingcommunicationbothbetweendialectspeakersintheregionandspeakersfromotherregionsorspeakersofstandardDutch,inaccordancewiththeviewsimplicitintheconicalmodel.Theregiolectsinthe(Dutch)Randstad,DutchLimburgandBelgianLimburgareonlyinsignificantlyclosertothestandardwhencomparedtothebasedialects(64thto80thpercentiles).

Weshallcontinuethisdiscussionbelow,butletusnotethatwemayevennowconcludethatonlyonecase(ineight)satisfiestheconditionssetoutintheconicalmodel,namelyWestFlanders.Thisregiolectalspeakersucceedsinproducingspeechwhichisclosertothebasedialectsthanthestandardisandwhichoccupiesanintermediateposition(atthe90thpercentile)inproximitytothestandard.Alloftheothersevencasesviolateoneofthetwopredictionsoftheconicalmodel.

Tworegiolectsareparticularlyextreme,moreover,theregiolectsinGroningenandAntwerp,whicharefurtherfromthestandardthanmostofthebasedialectsintheirrespectiveregionsare.Fortheseregiolectalforms,itisimplausibletoattributeafacilitating,primarilycommunicativefunctionastheywouldneedtobeclosertothestandardtoservethatfunction.

Weaskedthesecondquestionbecausetheconicalmodelpredictsthatregiolectsshouldbeclosertothestandardthanthebasedialectsare(andnotmerelythatbasedialectsareclosertotheregiolectthantheyaretothestandard).Theconicalmodelofregiolectfunctioningdoesnotforeseethechanceofaspeechformfunctioningregionallythatisactuallylesslikethestandardthanthebasedialectsare.ButthisiswhatweseeinGroningenandAntwerp.IntermsofHinskensandAuers(1996)cone,theseregiolectshavedroppedbelowthebaseformedbythebasilects.Wereturntothisinthediscussion.

ThecaseofGroningenisparticularlyinterestingwithrespecttothesecondquestion.AsFig.7.1shows(toprightgraph),itturnsoutthatmorethan75%ofthebasedialectsareclosertothestandardthantheregiolectis.Thismeansthatthebasedialectswouldbebettercandidatesforfacilitatingcommunication.This,wesubmit,isaclearcaseofaregiolectwhichservesmoreasvehicleofidentificationthanasameansofcoordinatingcommunication.Ifweviewthisfromtheperspectiveoftheconicalmodelforbasedialectsandstandards,thenthisregiolectdoesnotfitintheconedefinedbybasedialectsandstandard,butratherissituatedbelowthebaseofthecone,i.e.furtherfromthestandardthanmostofthebasedialects.

Thethirdquestionwasincludedasacheckonourregiolectalspeakers,anditisreassuringtonotethattheyvirtuallyallsucceededinusingaversionofregionalspeechthatwasclosertothebasedialectsoftheirownregionthantothebasedialectsofanyother.TheRandstadregiolectalspeaker

wastheonlyexception.Inhiscase,thebasedialectsofNorthBrabantturnedouttobemarginallybetterrepresentedbyhisspeechthanthoseoftheRandstaditself.Comparethesecondandthirdboxesinfig.7.2.Foralltheothereightregionsthebasedialectsoftheregioninquestionweremassivelyclosertotheregiolectthananyothers(notshowngraphically).GiventhattheDutchRandstadandNorthBrabantarequitesimilartooneanother,wearewillingtoconcludethattheregiolectalspeakersweresuccessfullyinfaithfullyrepresentingthespeechoftheirownregion.

Beforeclosingthispresentationofresultsweshouldliketopresentsomegeneralobservations.First,thedistanceoftheregiolecttothestandardincreasesinmoreperipheralregions.ThusthedistancebetweenGroningenregiolectandstandardDutchislargerthanthedistancebetweenRandstadregiolectandthestandard.TheheightofthedottedlinesrisefromlefttorightinbothrowsoftheFig.7.1,whichareorderedfromcentraltoperipheralareas.Interestingly,thesamecannotbesaidaboutthedistancebetweenthedialectsandthestandard(leftmostboxineachgraph).ThemeandistanceintheNetherlandicDutchdialectsdoesincrease,butthereisnosimpleriseinBelgianDutchdialects.

Fig.7.2Phoneticdistances(yaxis)betweentheRandstaddialectsandthestandard(NL)andtheregiolectsofeachregion(xaxis)intheNetherlands,includingtheRandstad(RS),NorthBrabant(NB),DutchLimburg(LB)andGroningen(GN).ThedottedlineisthedistancebetweentheRandstadregiolectandstandard.

Analternativeviewoftheregiolectasageneralintermediatevarietywouldbethattheregiolectmightbeapersonalintermediatevarietybetweenthestandardandthedialectofeachparticularspeaker.Tocheckonthis,wetookacloserlookatthedata,askingwhethertheregiolectismoresimilartothedialectoftheplacethespeakeroriginatesfromthantootherdialects(whereweknewwherethespeakerwasfrom).Thiswasnotthecase.Thissuggeststhattheregiolectisnotmerelyastandardizedformofeachparticularspeakersowndialect.Theregiolectmightalsobeconjecturedtobeanintermediateformbetweenthevarietyofalargeurbancentreandthestandard,butthe

distancesbetweenthedialectsofbiggercitiesandtheregiolectandstandarddidnotrevealaninfluenceofthiskind.

7. Conclusions,Discussion,andProspectsforFutureWork.

InthispaperwequantitativelyexaminedthespeechofprofessionalregionalspeakersfromtheperspectiveofofAuerandHinskenss(1996)conicalmodelinordertobetterunderstandthecommunicativeandsocialfunctionofregiolects.Theconicalmodelpredictsthatregiolectstakeanintermediatelinguisticpositionbetweenbasedialectsandthestandardlanguage.Bymeasuringthephoneticdistancesbetweendialects,regiolectsandthestandardlanguageinBelgiumandtheNetherlandswehopedtobeabletodrawconclusionsabouttherelativepositionoftheeightDutchandBelgianformsofspeechinrelationtothebasedialectsandstandardlanguagesinthesameregion.

Weapproachedthequestionfromtwoperspectives.First,welookedatthemeanphoneticdistancesbetweenthebasedialectsofeachareaandthecorrespondingregiolectsontheonehandandstandardlanguagesontheother.Theconicalmodelpredictsthatthebasedialectsshouldbeclosertotheirregiolectsthantheyaretothestandardlanguage.However,thispredictionwasflatlyincorrectinhalfofthecases.Infourregionsthebasedialectsareclosertothestandardthantotheregiolect(Randstad,NorthBrabant,BelgianBrabantandBelgianLimburg).Inafifthcase,Antwerp,thereisnosignificantdifference.

Thisresultshowsthatregiolectsdonotalwaysfacilitatecommunicationbetweenspeakerswithinagivenregion,sincethespeakersmighthaveusedthestandardlanguageforthispurpose.Regiolectsarealsounlikelytofacilitatecommunicationbetweenspeakersofdifferentregions,asthestandardisingeneralquitesufficient.Weinterpretthisresult,therefore,toindicatethatregiolectsfunctionatleastsomeofthetimetoallowspeakerstoshowidentificationandsolidaritywiththeirregions.

Next,wecheckedthepredictionofthemodelthatregiolectsarelinguisticallyasteptowardthestandard,i.e.,inanintermediatepositionbetweenthebasedialectsandthestandard.Givenouranswertothefirstquestionabove,itonlymakessensetoaskthissecondquestionofthosevarietieswherethebasedialectsareclosertotheregiolects(thantothestandard),i.e.Groningen,LimburgandWestFlanders.WeindeedfoundthattheregiolectalspeakersinGroningenandinAntwerpusedspeechclosertothebasedialects,butthattheirspeechwasatafurtherremovefromthestandard.Intermsoftheconicalmodel,theseformsdropbelowthebaseofthecone.Themainfunctionofthisregiolectalspeechthereforecannotbeextraregionalcommunication;thefunctionmustpresumablyrevolvearoundsocialidentification.

SincewehaveresultsfrombothBelgiumandtheNetherlandswewereabletocompareresultsfromthetwocountries.Forhistoricalreasons,weexpectedtheBelgianDutchspeechtobemorediverse,bothsociallyandgeographically,thantheDutchoftheNetherlands.InotherwordsweexpectedthedifferencesbetweentheregiolectsandthedialectsandthestandardlanguagetobelargerinBelgiumthanintheNetherlands,andindeedthemeandistanceoftheBelgiandialectstotheBelgianstandardissignificantlylargerthatthedistanceoftheDutchdialectstotheDutchstandard(p

regions,whichwesuspectwouldmagnifythedifference,sinceaverylargeproportionoftheDutchpopulationlivesinorneartheRandstad.TheDutchregiolectsturnouttobeabitfurtherfromthe(Dutch)standardthantheBelgianregiolectsare(fromtheBelgianstandard),butthesampleistoosmallforsignificancetobereached.WeconjecturethatthefunctionofsocialidentificationismoreimportanttotheregiolectsintheNetherlandsthaninBelgium,atleastinthecaseoftheperipheralregiolectsofGroningenandLimburgwherethedifferencesarelargest.Again,withinBelgiumthetwoperipheralregiolectsofLimburgandWestFlandersshowthelargestdistancestothestandard.Speakerswholiveinareasfarawayfromthepoliticalandeconomicalcentersmayfeelagreaterneedtomanifesttheirregionalidentitythanspeakerswholiveclosertothesecenters.

Wehavepresentedamethodtotesttherelationshipbetweendialects,regiolectsandthestandardlanguageofalanguageareaquantitatively.Weareawareofthefactthatasinglespeakerofaregiolectcannotberegardedasrepresentative,inspiteofthemitigatingcircumstancethatthesearepeoplewithprofessionalfunctionsinvolvingregionalspeech.Weanticipatetheobjectionthatourexaminationjustifiesonlyconclusionsabouttheseradioannouncersandhowtheyfulfilltheirprofessionalroleasregionalspeakers.Itispossiblethateachspeakerhashisownwayofmanifestingregionalaffinitylinguistically.Weadd,however,thatwesought,butfoundnoindicationsthatourspeakersbasedtheirregionalspeechontheirowndialectinparticular,noronthedialectofamajortownorcityinthevicinity.Neitherdidwefindindicationsthatthespeakersuseaspeechformwhichcouldbecharacterizedasgeneralregionalspeechwithcharacteristicsfromotherregions.Itispossiblethatspeakerstendtobasetheirchoiceofspeechformsonstereotypesandshibbolethswhensignalingtheirregionalidentityratherthanononeparticulardialectfromtheregion.Furthermore,itisuncertainhowstabletheregionalspeechformsofdifferentspeakersfromthesameregionwouldbeinthisrespectandhowstablythevariousmanifestationsofaregiolectvarywithrespecttothestandardandtothebasedialects,bothinindividualspeakersbutespeciallyacrossspeakers.

Auers(2005)cautionthatoneperhapsshouldnotregardregiolectsasvarietyisinsightfulinviewoftheresultshere.Perhapsweshouldratherregardregiolectalspeechasthe(situated)varietalperformanceofaregionalidentityratherthanasanaturalkoin.AuerandHinskens(1996:6)comparesomeregionalspeechtolearnervarietiesbecauseoftheiroccasionallymakeshiftnature.Eckert(2001)remindsushowlinguisticallysystematicsuchmattersmaybe,butinresolutelyreferringtosomelinguisticvariationasstyle,sheremindsushowpersonalitalsois.

Futureresearchshouldincludemorespeakersinordertobeabletodrawconclusionsaboutthevariabilityofregiolects.Toshedmorelightonquestionsofregionalspeech,weshouldexaminethespeechofanumberofspeakersineachregionaccompaniedbydetailedinformationaboutthespeakerslinguisticbackgroundsandtheirchoicesoflinguisticforms.Inviewofthepossibilitythatwearedealingherewithamatterofsituatedstyle,itwillbeimportanttosetthestagecarefullywhencollectingdata.Thenaturalisticdatacollectionmightbeaccompaniedbyperceptionexperimentspresentingthespeechofdifferentregiolectspeakerstolistenersfromtheregion.Theaimofsuchexperimentswouldbetogetanideaofwhatlistenersregardasrepresentativespeechfortheirregion,whatthelinguisticcharacteristicsareoftheseregiolects,andwhichattitudeslistenershavetowardsthem.Inourinvestigationwehaveusedprofessionalspeakersfromregionalradiostations.Sincesuchspeakersarelikelytobemoreawareofhowtoswitchbetweendialect,regiolectandstandard,wecollectedourdatabyaskingthemtoreadalistofwordsinthestyleof

speechtheyusedasprofessionalspeakersintheregion.Infutureresearchitisimportanttofindwaystoincludetheregiolectalspeechformsofothergroupsofspeakersaswell.

8. References

Auer,Peter.2005.Europessociolinguisticunity,or:AtypologyofEuropeandialect/standardconstellations.InN.Delbecque,J.VanderAuweraandD.Geeraerts(eds.)PerspectivesonVariation.Sociolinguistic,Historical,Comparative.Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.742.

Auer,Peter,FransHinskens,andPaulKerswill,eds.2005.DialectChange:ConvergenceandDivergenceinEuropeanLanguages.Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.Press.

Auer,PeterandFransHinskens.1996.TheconvergenceanddivergenceofdialectsinEurope.Newandnotsonewdevelopmentsinanoldarea.Sociolinguistica10:130.

Chambers,J.K.andPeterTrudgill.1998(11980).Dialectology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.Press.

VanCoetsem,Frans.1988.LoanPhonologyandtheTwoTransferTypesinLanguageContact.Dordrecht:Foris.

Eckert,Penelope.2001.Styleandsocialmeaning.InPenelopeEckertandJohnR.Rickford(eds.)StyleandSociolinguisticVariation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.119126.

Geeraerts,Dirk.2001.Eenzondagspak?HetNederlandsinVlaanderen:Gedrag,beleid,Attitudes.OnsErfdeel44:337343.

Goeman,TonandJohanTaeldeman.1996.FonologieenmorfologievandeNederlandsedialecten.Eennieuwemateriaalverzamelingentweenieuweatlasprojecten.TaalenTongval48,1:3859.

GrondelaersStefan,HildevanAken,DirkSpeelmanandDirkGeeraerts.2001.Inhoudswoordenenprepositiesalsstandaardiseringsindicatoren.DediachroneensynchronestatusvanhetBelgischeNederlands.NederlandseTaalkunde6:179202.

Gussenhoven,Carlos.2007.WatisdebestetranscriptievoorhetNederlands?NederlandseTaalkunde12:331350.

Haugen,Einar.1966.Dialect,language,nation.AmericanAnthropologist68:922935.

Howell,RobertB.2006.Immigrationandkoineization:theformationofEarlyModernDutchurbanvernaculars.TransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety104,207227.

Impe,Leen,DirkGeeraertsandDirkSpeelman.2008.MutualintelligibilityofstandardandregionalDutchlanguagevarieties.InternationalJournalofHumanitiesandArtsComputing2(12):101117.

Labov,William.1972.SociolinguisticPatterns.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.

Levenshtein,Vladimir.1965.Binarycodescapableofcorrectingdeletions,insertionsandreversals,DokladyAkademiiNaukSSSR163:845848.

Mattheier,Klaus.1996.Varietatenkonvergenz:berlengungenzueinemBausteineinerTheorieder

Sprachvariation.Sociolinguistica10:131.

Nerbonne,JohnandWilbertHeeringa.2009.MeasuringDialectDifferencesLanguageandSpace:TheoriesandMethodsinseries.InJ.E.SchmidtandP.Auer(eds.)HandbooksofLinguisticsandCommunicationScience.DeGruyter,Berlin.550567.

Randstadmonitor2006,RegioRandstad.PublicisConsultantsVanSluis.

Smakman,Dick.2006.StandardDutchinTheNetherlands.AsociolinguisticandPhoneticDescription.Utrecht:LOTPublishers.

Sobrero,AlbertoA.1996.Italianizationandvariationsintherepertoire:theKoinai.Sociolinguistica10.105111.

Trudgill,Peter.1986.DialectsinContact.Oxford:Blackwell.

Velde,Hansvande.1996.VariatieenVeranderinginhetGesprokenStandaardNederlands(19351993).PhDdissertation.Nijmegen:UniversityofNijmegen.

Verhoeven,Jo.2005.BelgianStandardDutch.JournaloftheInternationalPhoneticAssociation35:243247.

Wieling,MartijnandJohnNerbonne(accepted).MeasuringLinguisticVariationCommensurably.Dialectologia.

Wieling,Martijn,WilbertHeeringaandJohnNerbonne.2007.AnaggregateanalysisofpronunciationintheGoemanTaeldemanvanReenenProjectdata.TaalenTongval,59:84116.

Wieling,Martijn,JelenaProkiandJohnNerbonne.2009.Evaluatingthepairwisestringalignmentofpronunciations.In:LarsBorinandPiroskaLendvai(eds.)LanguageTechnologyandResourcesforCulturalHeritage,SocialSciences,Humanities,andEducation(LaTeCHSHELT&R2009)Workshopatthe12thMeetingoftheEuropeanChapteroftheAssociationforComputationalLinguistics.Athens,30March2009.2634.

Appendix

Listof37wordsusedforpronunciationanalysisreferencenr.GTRP

word Englishtranslation

Partofspeech

379 meid girl noun723 zakken bags noun748 aardig nice adjective784 droog dry adjective791 duur expensive adjective806 goed good adjective816 groot big adjective819 haastig hasty adjective821 hard hard adjective830 hoog high adjective836 juist correct adjective842 kort short adjective881 proper clean adjective898 schoon clean adjective905 simpel simple adjective906 slecht bad adjective935 vreemd strange adjective954 ziek ill adjective965 zwaar heavy adjective

1194 gebruiken use verb1267 kopen buy verb1300 lachen laugh verb1313 leunen lean verb1318 liggen ly verb1329 maken make verb1340 mogen may verb1344 noemen call verb1357 rijden drive verb1373 scheren shave verb1381 schrijven write verb1426 spreken speak verb1446 stampen pound verb1473 vallen fall verb1509 vrijen makelove verb1527 weten know verb1549 wrijven rub verb1553 zeggen say verb

2.1 The sociolinguistics of regiolectal formation 2.2 Regiolectal speech