Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-ww2r4 Total loading time: 0.17 Render date: 2022-01-21T06:29:20.584Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Exploring global and local patterns in the correlation of geographic distances and morphosyntactic variation in Swiss German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2017

Péter Jeszenszky
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Zurich (UZH), Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057, Zurich
Philipp Stoeckle
Affiliation:
German Department, University of Zurich (UZH), Schönberggasse 2, CH-8001, Zurich
Elvira Glaser
Affiliation:
German Department, University of Zurich (UZH), Schönberggasse 2, CH-8001, Zurich
Robert Weibel
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Zurich (UZH), Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057, Zurich

Abstract

Using data from a Swiss German dialect syntax survey, this study aims to explore, in a spatially differentiated manner, the correlation between dialectal variation and geographic distances. A linguistic distance was expressed by a measure aggregated from 60 survey questions. To operationalize the possibility of language contact, Euclidean distance, as well as travel times in 2000, 1950 and 1850 between survey sites were used. Going beyond previous work by others, we also explore the covariation of geographic and linguistic distances at the local level, focusing on spatial subsets and individual survey sites, thus being able to paint a more differentiated picture. With the diverse physical landscape of Switzerland making an impact on potential language contact, we find that travel times are a better predictor than Euclidean distance for the syntactic variation in Swiss German dialects. However, on the local scale the difference is not always significant, depending on prevalent topography.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barbiers, Sjef, Bennis, Hans J., De Vogelaer, Gunther, Devos, Magda & van der Ham, Margreet H.. 2005. Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten/Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects Volume I. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Bucheli, Claudia & Glaser, Elvira. 2002. The Syntactic Atlas of Swiss German dialects: Empirical and methodological problems. In Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips & Susanne van der Kleij (eds.), Syntactic microvariation, Vol. 2. 41-73. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute Electronic Publications in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bucheli Berger, Claudia. 2010. Dativ für Akkusativ im Senslerischen (Kanton Freiburg). In Helen Christen, Sibylle Germann, Walter Haas, Nadia Montefiori & Hans Ruef (eds.), Alemannische Dialektologie: Wege in die Zukunft. Beiträge zur 16. Arbeitstagung für alemannische Dialektologie in Freiburg/Fribourg vom 07.-10.09.2008. 71-83. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. & Trudgill, Peter. 1998. Dialectology. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christen, Helen. 1998. Convergence and divergence in the Swiss German dialects. Folia Linguistica, 32(1–2). 53-68. doi: 10.1515/flin.1998.32.1-2.53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fröhlich, Philipp, Frey, Thomas, Reubi, Serge & Schiedt, Hans Ulrich. 2004. Entwicklung des Transitverkehrs-Systems und deren Auswirkung auf die Raumnutzung in der Schweiz (COST 340): Verkehrsnetz-Datenbank. (COST). Zürich. http://www.ivt.ethz.ch/vpl/publications/reports.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 1982. Dialektometrie. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Denkschriften, 157. Band). Wien.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 1983. “Stammbaum” und “Welle”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 2(1). 3-44.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 2010. Dialectometry and quantitative mapping. In Alfred Lameli, Roland Kehrein & Stefan Rabanus (eds.), Language and space. Vol. 2: Language mapping., 433-457. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte. 2004. Norwegian dialect distances geographically explained. In Britt-Louise Gunnarson, Lena Bergström, Gerd Eklund, Staffan Fridella, Lise H. Hansen, Angela Karstadt, Bengt Nordberg, Eva Sundgren & Mats Thelander (eds.), Language variation in Europe. Papers from the Second International Conference on Language Variation in Europe ICLAVE Vol. 2. 2004, 195–206. Uppsala.Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack. 2014. A comparison of statistical methods for the aggregation of regional linguistic variation. In Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.), Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech, 1-34. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110317558.53.Google Scholar
Griffith, Donald Atkins. 1987. Spatial autocorrelation: A primer. Regional Science and Urban Economics. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers, doi: 10.1016/0166-0462(92)90032-V.Google Scholar
Haynie, Hannah Jane. 2012. Studies in the history and geography of California languages. University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert & Nerbonne, John. 2001. Dialect areas and dialect continua. Language Variation and Change 13(3). 375-400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotzenköcherle, Rudolf. 1986. Dialektstrukturen im Wandel. Aarau.Google Scholar
Hotzenköcherle, Rudolf, Schläpfer, Reuel, Trüb, Peter & Zinsli, Giuseppe (eds.). 1962–1998. Sprachatlas der deutschen Schweiz. I–VIII. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe & Guardiano, Cristina. 2009. Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness. Lingua 119(11). 1679-1706. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.09.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, Richard. 2000. VassarStats: Website for statistical computation. http://vassarstats.net/rdiff.html? (20 September, 2016.)Google Scholar
Mantel, Nathan. 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research, 27(2). 209-220. doi: 10.1038/212665a0. Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John. 2009. Data-driven dialectology. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). 175-198 doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00114.x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerbonne, John. 2010. Measuring the diffusion of linguistic change. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 365(1559). 3821-3828 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nerbonne, John & Kleiweg, Peter. 2007. Toward a dialectological yardstick. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 14(2). 148-167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickl, Simon, Spettl, Aaron, Pröll, Simon, Elspaß, Stephan, König, Werner & Schmidt, Volker. 2014. Linguistic distances in dialectometric intensity estimation. Journal of Linguistic Geography, 2(1). 25-40. doi: 10.1017/jlg.2014.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SADS = Glaser, Elvira (ed.) ( forthcoming) Syntaktischer Atlas der Deutschen Schweiz. University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Scherrer, Yves. 2012. Generating Swiss German sentences from Standard German: A multi-dialectal approach. Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Scherrer, Yves & Stoeckle, Philipp. 2016. A quantitative approach to Swiss German – Dialectometric analyses and comparisons of linguistic levels. Dialectologia et Geolinguistica, 24. 92-125. doi: 10.1515/dialect-2016-0006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Séguy, Jean. 1971. La relation entre la distance spatiale et la distance lexicale. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 35(138). 335-357.Google Scholar
Shackleton, Robert G. Jr. 2007. Phonetic variation in the traditional English dialects: A computational analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 35(1). 30-102 doi: 10.1177/0075424206297857. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speelman, Dirk, Grondelaers, Stefan & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2003. Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Computers and the Humanities, 37. 317-337. doi: 10.1023/A:1025019216574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruit, Marco René. 2006. Measuring syntactic variation in Dutch dialects. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 21(4). 493-506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruit, Marco René. 2008. Quantitative perspectives on syntactic variation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Spruit, René, Marco, Heeringa, Wilbert & Nerbonne, John. 2009. Associations among linguistic levels. Lingua, 119(11). 1624-1642. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.02.001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, James N. 2012. One size fits all? Dialectometry in a small clan-based indigenous society. Language Variation and Change, 24(2). 247-278. doi: 10.1017/S0954394512000087. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoeckle, Philipp. 2014. Subjektive Dialekträume im alemannischen Dreiländereck. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Stoeckle, Philipp. 2016. Horizontal and vertical variation in Swiss German morphosyntax. In Marie-Hélène Côté, Remco Knooihuizen & John Nerbonne (eds.), The future of dialects: Selected papers from Methods in Dialectology XV (Language Variation 1), 195-215. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Sui, Daniel Z. 2004. Tobler’s first law of geography: A big idea for a small world? Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(2). 269-277. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09402003.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2012. Geography is overrated. In Sandra Hansen, Christian Schwarz, Philipp Stoeckle & Tobias Streck (eds.), Dialectological and folk dialectological concepts of space: Current methods and perspectives in sociolinguistic research on dialect change, 215-231. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2014. Methods and objectives in contemporary dialectology. In Ilja A. Seržant & Björn Wiemer (eds.), Contemporary approaches to dialectology: The area of North, Northwest Russian and Belarusian vernaculars / Современные методы в диалектологии. Ареал северных, северо-западных русских и белорусских говоров, 81-92. Bergen: Department of Foreign Languages, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Tobler, Waldo R. 1970. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46(2). 234-240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. Linguistic change and diffusion: Description and explanation in sociolinguistic dialect geography. Language in Society, 2. 215-246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. & Cavalli-Sforza, Luca L.. 1986. Spatial distance and lexical replacement. Language, 62. 38-55.Google Scholar
Warner, Rebecca M. 2013. Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques. 2nd edn. Los Angeles / London / New Delhi / Singapore / Washington D.C.: SAGE.Google Scholar
8
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Exploring global and local patterns in the correlation of geographic distances and morphosyntactic variation in Swiss German
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Exploring global and local patterns in the correlation of geographic distances and morphosyntactic variation in Swiss German
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Exploring global and local patterns in the correlation of geographic distances and morphosyntactic variation in Swiss German
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *