Cover not available
Part of
Acquiring Sociolinguistic Variation
Edited by Gunther De Vogelaer and Matthias Katerbow
[Studies in Language Variation 20] 2017
► pp. 267–304

Chapter 10
Acquisition of phonological variables of a Flemish dialect by children raised in Standard Dutch

Some considerations on the learning mechanisms

| Computational Linguistics and Psycholinguistics Research Center (CLiPS), University of Antwerp
| Tilburg center for Cognition and Communication (TiCC), Tilburg University
| Computational Linguistics and Psycholinguistics Research Center (CLiPS), University of Antwerp
| Computational Linguistics and Psycholinguistics Research Center (CLiPS), University of Antwerp
This study investigates the learning mechanisms underlying the acquisition of a dialect as a second language. We focus on the acquisition of phonological features of a Flemish dialect by children with Standard Dutch or a regional variety of Dutch as their first language. Data were gathered by means of picture naming and sentence completion tasks. Inspired by Chambers (1992), who found that the data of second dialect learners displayed S-curve patterns which he interpreted as evidence of rule-based learning, we examine whether similar S-curves can be observed in the learner data of our subjects. Contrary to Chambers, our subjects’ data do not display S-curves but bear evidence of word-by-word learning across the board. These data are consistent with analogical memory-based models of language acquisition. In order to further investigate the applicability of memory-based reasoning to our data, we perform a computational classification task in TiMBL (Daelemans & Van den Bosch 2005), in which the dialect forms of Standard Dutch words have to be predicted on the basis of various amounts of training data. Not only do we compare the accuracy scores of the model with the acquisition scores of our subjects, the classification task also gives us insight into which words constitute the nearest neighbours of a given word. On the basis of this output, we investigate the effect of the number of enemy neighbours on the degree to which the subjects realize the correct dialect variants of words and on the degree to which they make overgeneralization errors. The major finding of this paper is that dialect forms are more often realized incorrectly and that more overgeneralization errors occur in words with a large(r) number of enemy neighbours.
Keywords: second dialect acquisition, memory-based learning, rule-based learning, neighbourhood effects, overgeneralization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Rule-based versus exemplar-based learning
    • 2.1S-curve as an indication of rule-based learning
    • 2.2Neighbourhood-effects as an indication of exemplar-based learning
    • 2.3Memory-based language processing
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Research location
    • 3.2Subjects: Selection and categorization
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Word list, phonological features and dependent variables
    • 3.5Training items and test items
    • 3.6Measuring neighbourhood effects
    • 3.7Determining S-curves in score graphs
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Distribution of scores
    • 4.2Accuracy in TiMBL classification
    • 4.3Neighbourhood effects
      • 4.3.1Effect of number of enemy neighbours on dialect realization
      • 4.3.2Effect of number of enemy neighbours on overgeneralization
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
    • 5.1Chambers’ sixth principle: Indications of rule learning?
    • 5.2TiMBL classification and effects of enemy neighbours
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.20.10rys
References (56)
References
Aha, David W. 1997. Lazy Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam, and Bruce Hayes. 2003. “Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/ experimental study.” Cognition 90: 119–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1990. Phonologie der Alltagssprache. Zur Beschreibung von Variation am Beispiel des Konstanzer Stadtdialekts [Studia Linguistica Germanica 28]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. “Zweidimensionale Modelle für die Analyse von Standard/Dialekt-Variation und ihre Vorläufer in der deutschen Dialektologie.” In Verhandlungen des internationalen Dialektologenkongresses, Bamberg 1990, ed. by Wolfgang Viereck, 3–22. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald, R. Piepenbrock, and Leon Gulikers. 1995. The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Berthele, Raphael. 2002. “Learning a Second Dialect: A Model of Idiolectal Dissonance.” Multilingua 21: 327–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1995. “Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. 1992. “Dialect Acquisition.” Language 68: 673–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Jack K., and Peter Trudgill. 1980. Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew Y., and William S.-Y. Wang. 1975. “Sound Change: Actuation and Implementation.” Language 51: 255–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter, and Antal Van den Bosch. 2005. Memory-Based Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deprez, Kas, and Georges De Schutter. 1981. “Het Antwerps in Antwerpen. Een attitude-onderzoek.” In Linguistics in Belgium 4. Papers from the Fourth December Meeting of the Belgian Linguistics Circle, ed. by Marc Dominicy, and Christian Peeters, 17–39. Brussel: Didier Hatier.Google Scholar
De Vink, Leendert. 2004. Dialect en dialectverandering in Katwijk aan Zee. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
Devitt, Amy J. 1989. Standardizing Written English: Diffusion in the Case of Scotland, 1520–1659. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Vogelaer, Gunther. 2010. “(Not) Acquiring Grammatical Gender in Two Varieties of Dutch.” In Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen, and Yves Peirsman, 167–190. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vogelaer, Gunther, and Clasien Rooze-Stouthamer. 2006. “Taalcontact of onvolledige verwerving: casusverlies bij de Zeeuwse pronomina.” Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 122: 348–368.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang, and Ruth Wodak. 1982. “Sociophonological Methods in the Study of Sociolinguistic Variation in Viennese German.” Language in society 11: 339–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam, and Harald Baayen. 2011. “Corpora and Exemplars in Phonology.” In The Handbook of Phonological Theory [2nd edition], ed. by J. A. Goldsmith, J. Riggle, and A. C. L. Yu, 374–400. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1999. “Noch Standaard, noch dialect. “Tussentaal” in Vlaanderen en Nederland.” Onze Taal 68: 232–235.Google Scholar
Hill, J. P. 1981. “De verandering van sociale relaties in de vroege adolescentie.” In Psychologie van jeugdjaren en adolescentie; nieuwe ontwikkelingen en bevindingen, ed. by Franz J. Mönks, 77–105. Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt.Google Scholar
Hinskens, Frans. 1998. “Variation studies in dialectology and three types of sound change.” In Linguistics of Variation [Sociolinguistica 12], ed. by Ulrich Ammon, 155–193. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hoppenbrouwers, Cor. 1990. Het regiolect. Van dialect tot Algemeen Nederlands. Muiderberg: Dick Coutinho.Google Scholar
Katerbow, Matthias. 2012. Spracherwerb und Sprachvariation. Eine phonetisch-phonologische Analyse zum regionalen Erstspracherwerb im Moselfränkischen (Wittlich/Eifel). Frankfurt am Main: Philipps-Universität Marburg.Google Scholar
Keuleers, Emmanuel, Kevin Diependaele, and Marc Brysbaert. 2010. “Practice Effects in Large-scale Visual Word Recognition Studies: A Lexical Decision Study on 14,000 Dutch Mono- and Disyllabic Words and Nonwords.” Frontiers in Psychology, DOI logo.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Peter. 1994. Dialects Converging: Rural Speech in Urban Norway. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Children and Language Change.” Language Variation and Change 8: 177–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2006. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lybaert, Chloé. 2014. Het gesproken Nederlands in Vlaanderen: percepties en attitudes van een spraakmakende generatie. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Moosmüller, Sylvia. 1988. “Sociophonology.” In Variation and Convergence, ed. by Peter Auer, and Aldo di Luzio, 76–93. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Münstermann, Henk, and Roeland Van Hout. 1988. “Language Attitudes and the Prediction of Dialect Use.” In Language Attitudes in the Dutch Language Area, ed. by Roeland van Hout, and Uus Knops, 173–188. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, Arvilla C. 1976. The Acquisition of the Phonological System of a Second Dialect. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
1980. “Factors Controlling the Acquisition of the Philadelphia Dialect by Out-of-state Children.” In Locating Language in Time and Space, ed. by William Labov, 143–178. New York & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2002. “Word-specific Phonetics.” In Phonology and Phonetics: Papers in Laboratory Phonology VII, ed. by Carlos Gussenhoven, and Natasha Warner, 101–140. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rys, Kathy. 2003. “Secundaire verwerving van fonologische elementen van een dialect.” Taal en tongval 55: 68–108.Google Scholar
. 2007. Dialect as a Second Language: Linguistic and Non-linguistic Factors in Secondary Dialect Acquisition by Children and Adolescents. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Rys, Kathy, and Dries Bonte. 2006. “The Role of Linguistic Factors in the Process of Second Dialect Acquisition.” In Language Variation – European Perspectives I, ed. by Frans Hinskens, 201–215. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rys, Kathy, and Katrien De Valck. 2010. “Overgeneralisatie in tweede dialectverwerving: het belang van typefrequentie voor de productiviteit van kenmerken en voor het proces van dialectverandering.” In Voor Magda. Artikelen voor Magda Devos bij haar afscheid van de Universiteit Gent, ed. by Johan De Caluwe, and Jacques Van Keymeulen, 525–540. Ghent: Ghent University, Department of Dutch Linguistics/Academia Press.Google Scholar
Rys, Kathy, and Johan Taeldeman. 2007. “Fonologische ingrediënten van Vlaamse tussentaal.” In Tussen taal, spelling en onderwijs. Essays bij het emeritaat van Frans Daems, ed. by Dominiek Sandra, Rita Rymenans, Pol Cuvelier, and Peter Van Petegem, 1–9. Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Sabbe, Saraï Hananja. 2005. Dialect in Zedelgem: kennis, attitudes, functionaliteit en resistentie. Unpublished MA thesis, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff. 2010. Second Dialect Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strijkers, Heidi. 1990. Taalgebruik, taalattitude en lexicale standaardizering in Melle. Unpublished MA thesis, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal, Deryle Lonsdale, and Dilworth B. Parkinson. 2002. Analogical Modeling. An Exemplar-based Approach to Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taeldeman, Johan. 1976. De klankstructuur van het Kleitse dialect. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
. 1989. “De taaltoestand in Vlaanderen.” Neerlandica Wratislaviensia IV: 77–90.Google Scholar
. 1991. “Dialect in Vlaanderen.” In Kroesels op de bozzem: het dialectenboek, ed. by Herman Crompvoets, and Ad Dams, 34–52. Waalre: Stichting Nederlandse Dialecten.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Dialectresistentie en dialectverlies op fonologisch gebied.” In Dialectverlies en regiolectvorming [ Taal en tongval 46], ed. by Frans Hinskens, Cor Hoppenbrouwers, and Johan Taeldeman, 102–119. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., and Sonja Molfenter. 2007. “How’d You Get that Accent? Acquiring a Second Dialect of the Same Language.” Language in Society 36: 649–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Versieck, Sabina. 1989. Het Maldegemse klanksysteem in het heden en honderd jaar geleden. Unpublished MA thesis, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Vousten, Rob, and Theo Bongaerts. 1990. “Acquiring a Dialect as L2: The Case of the Dialect of Venray in the Dutch Province of Limburg.” In Verhandlungen des internationalen Dialektologenkongresses Bamberg 1990 [Band 4], ed. by Wolfgang Viereck, 299–313. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Vousten, Rob. 1995. Dialect als tweede taal. Linguïstische en extra-linguïstische aspecten van de verwerving van een Noordlimburgs dialect door standaardtalige jongeren. PhD dissertation, University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. 1969. “Competing Changes as a Cause of Residue.” Language 45: 9–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y., and Chin-Chuan Cheng. 1970. “Implementation of Phonological Change: the Shuang-Feng Case.” POLA, 2(10): 1–9.Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 1973. Jamaican Pronunciation in London [Publications of the Philological Society 25]. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Riverin-Coutlée, Josiane, Johanna-Pascale Roy & Michele Gubian
2023. Using Mahalanobis Distances to Investigate Second Dialect Acquisition: A Study on Quebec French. Language and Speech 66:2 ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
Riverin-Coutlée, Josiane, Enkeleida Kapia, Conceição Cunha & Jonathan Harrington
2022. Vowels in urban and rural Albanian: the case of the Southern Gheg dialect. Phonetica 79:5 ► pp. 459 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 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.