Lexical Differences between Tuscan Dialects and Standard Italian: Accounting for Geographicand Sociodemographic Variation using Generalized Additive Mixed Modeling

Martijn B. Wieling · Simonetta Montemagni⋄ · John A. Nerbonne · R. Harald Baayen

102 citations0/0 files storedLanguage

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Linguistic Variation and Morphology Linguistic and Sociocultural Studies Linguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity

Abstract

This study uses a generalized additive mixed-effects regression model to predict lexical differences in Tuscan dialects with respect to standard Italian. We used lexical information for 170 concepts used by 2,060 speakers in 213 locations in Tuscany. In our model, geographical position was found to be an important predictor, with locations more distant from Florence having lexical forms more likely to differ from standard Italian. In addition, the geographical pattern varied significantly for low-versus high-frequency concepts and older versus younger speakers. Younger speakers generally used variants more likely to match the standard language. Several other factors emerged as significant. Male speakers as well as farmers were more likely to use lexical forms different from standard Italian. In contrast, higher-educated speakers used lexical forms more likely to match the standard. The model also indicates that lexical variants used in smaller communities are more likely to differ from standard Italian. The impact of community size, however, varied from concept to concept. For a majority of concepts, lexical variants used in smaller communities are more likely to differ from the standard Italian form. For a minority of concepts, however, lexical variants used in larger communities are more likely to differ from standard Italian. Similarly, the effect of the other community- and speaker-related predictors varied per concept. These results clearly show that the model succeeds in teasing apart different forces influencing the dialect landscape and helps us to shed light on the complex interaction between the standard Italian language and the Tuscan dialectal varieties. In addition, this study illustrates the potential of generalized additive mixed-effects regression modeling applied to dialect data.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 102 citations exist upstream.

References

1968The Social Stratification of English in New York City.1975Sociolinguistic patterns . By William Labov. (Conduct and communication, 4.) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972. Pp. xviii, 344. $5.95.2001Phonology and Language Use 2008Getting off the GoldVarb Standard: Introducing Rbrul for Mixed‐Effects Variable Rule Analysis 1997Singulars and Plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a Parallel Dual-Route Model 2012Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice 1974Variable Rules: Performance as a Statistical Reflection of Competence 2007Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history

Cited by

2018Analyzing dynamic phonetic data using generalized additive mixed modeling: A tutorial focusing on articulatory differences between L1 and L2 speakers of English 2017Towards a New Standard 2017The Medium-Term Dynamics of Accents on Reality Television 2018An areal typology of clause-final negation in Africa 2016The influence of gradient foreign accentedness and listener experience on word recognition

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.