Traditional dialectology took region as its primary and often its only independent variable. Because of numerous social changes, region is no longer the primary determinant of language variation, and contemporary (sociolinguistic) dialectology has expanded the number of independent variables. In Dialect Topography, we survey a representative population, and that population inevitably includes some subjects born outside the survey region. We want to know how these non-natives affect language use in the community. Admitting them thus requires us to implement some mechanism for identifying them in order to compare their language use to the natives. The mechanism is called the Regionality Index (RI). Subjects are ranked on a scale from 1 to 7, with the best representatives of the region (indigenes) receiving a score of 1, the poorest (interlopers) a score of 7, and subjects of intermediate degrees of representativeness in between. I look at three case studies in which RI is significant: bureau in Quebec City, running shoes in the Golden Horseshoe, and soft drink in Quebec City. These results introduce a new dimension to the study of language variation as a regional phenomenon and provide a framework for the integration of regionality as one independent variable among many in dialect studies. The RI provides, perhaps for the first time, an empirical basis for inferring the sociolinguistic effects of mobility.
2021. The Cambridge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics,
Monka, Malene, Pia Quist & Astrid Ravn Skovse
2020. Place attachment and linguistic variation: A quantitative analysis of language and local attachment in a rural village and an urban social housing area. Language in Society 49:2 ► pp. 173 ff.
Dollinger, Stefan
2019. Debunking “pluri-areality”: On the pluricentric perspective of national varieties. Journal of Linguistic Geography 7:2 ► pp. 98 ff.
Baines, Lawrence & Gul Nahar
2018. Loosening the Linkages Between Language and the Land. In Handbook of the Changing World Language Map, ► pp. 1 ff.
Baines, Lawrence & Gul Nahar
2020. Loosening the Linkages Between Language and the Land. In Handbook of the Changing World Language Map, ► pp. 3579 ff.
Chevrot, Jean‐Pierre, Katie Drager & Paul Foulkes
2018. Editors’ Introduction and Review: Sociolinguistic Variation and Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science 10:4 ► pp. 679 ff.
2015. Too Much of a Good Thing Would Be Wonderful. American Speech 90:1 ► pp. 106 ff.
Chambers, Jack K.
2015. Dialectology. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, ► pp. 348 ff.
Kataoka, Kuniyoshi & Yoshiyuki Asahi
2015. Synchronic and diachronic variation in the use of spatial frames of reference: An analysis of Japanese route instruction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19:2 ► pp. 133 ff.
Pizarro Pedraza, Andrea
2015. Who said ‘Abortion’? Semantic Variation and Ideology in Spanish Newspapers' Online Discussions. Australian Journal of Linguistics 35:1 ► pp. 53 ff.
Stamp, Rose, Adam Schembri, Jordan Fenlon, Ramas Rentelis, Bencie Woll, Kearsy Cormier & Howard Nusbaum
2014. Lexical Variation and Change in British Sign Language. PLoS ONE 9:4 ► pp. e94053 ff.
Chong, Alberto & Jose Galdo
2008. Is it possible to speak English without thinking American? On globalization and the determinants of cultural assimilation. Economics Letters 100:2 ► pp. 192 ff.
NADASDI, TERRY, RAYMOND MOUGEON & KATHERINE REHNER
2008. Factors driving lexical variation in L2 French: A variationist study of automobile, auto, voiture, char and machine. Journal of French Language Studies 18:3 ► pp. 365 ff.
Chong, Alberto
2006. Is it Possible to Speak English Without Thinking American? On Globalization and the Determinants of Cultural Assimilation. SSRN Electronic Journal
D'Arcy, Alexandra
2006. LEXICAL REPLACEMENT AND THE LIKE(S). American Speech 81:4 ► pp. 339 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.