Concept characteristics and variation in lexical diversity in two Dutch dialect areas

Abstract

Lexical diversity, the amount of lexical variation shown by a particular concept, varies between concepts. For the concept drunk, for instance, nearly 3000 English expressions exist, including blitzed, intoxicated, and hammered. For the concept sober, however, a significantly smaller number of lexical items is available, like sober or abstinent. While earlier variation studies have revealed that meaning-related concept characteristics correlate with the amount of lexical variation, these studies were limited in scope, being restricted to one semantic field and to one dialect area, that of the Limburgish dialects of Dutch. In this paper, we investigate whether the impact of concept characteristics, viz. vagueness, lack of salience and proneness to affect, is manifest in a similar way in other dialects and other semantic fields. In particular, by extending the scope of the earlier studies to other carefully selected semantic fields, we investigate the generalizability of the impact of concept characteristics to the lexicon as a whole. The quantitative approach that we employ to measure concept characteristics and lexical diversity methodologically advances the study of linguistic variation. Theoretically, this paper contributes to the further development of Cognitive Sociolinguistics by showcasing how meaning can be a source of lexical diversity.

Maps, meanings and loanwords: The interaction of geography and semantics in lexical borrowing

“…However, a shortcoming of this study is that we did not take into account characteristics of the concepts themselves. Previous research has shown that properties like the sensitivity to affect of a particular meaning may influence the amount of variation that is found (Franco et al, 2019; also see Weinreich, 1968:58-59). Additionally, it may be necessary to take into account the period when a particular concept or artifact was introduced into the Dutch culture and language.…”

Linking Linguistic and Geographic Distance in Four Semantic Domains: Computational Geo-Analyses of Internal and External Factors in a Dialect Continuum

“…However, the dictionary also contains entries for several jocular terms for body parts (e.g., for the head or mouth), children's names for body parts, taboo meanings (e.g., names for male and female genitalia), as well as concepts that are cognitively less salient, referring to parts of the body that might not turn up often in everyday conversations (e.g., dimples, or the upper part of the back). For the basic vocabulary concepts, we expect to find little lexical variation, whereas more variation can be expected across the dialect area for the jocular terms, children's names, and taboo and non-salient concepts (see Speelman and Geeraerts, 2008;Geeraerts and Speelman, 2010;Franco et al, 2019b).…”

“…Crucially, this approach allows them to show that differences in salience, both between and within taxonomical levels, correlate with naming preferences, including the fact that concepts that are more entrenched are more likely to be named with simplex forms. Later studies have shown that concepts with a higher degree of salience not only correlate with naming preferences, but also with decreased dialectal variation (Speelman and Geeraerts, 2008;Geeraerts and Speelman, 2010;Franco et al, 2019b). For example, in the semantic field of the human body, the Limburgish dialect dictionary only contains a single word for a highly salient concept like blood, whereas a lot more variation occurs for less salient concepts like the little dents between the knuckles, or bristly (w.r.t.…”

“…This is especially relevant for measures based on lexical variation, as language-internal semantic characteristics have been shown to affect the distribution of lexical dialect data (cf. Speelman and Geeraerts, 2008;Franco et al, 2019b).…”

Conceptual Model of Politics in American English

“…In all cases, it was understood as a structure stored in our minds. Nevertheless, a simultaneous Western tendency was traced in regarding concepts as a reflection of language-unit meanings or simply as information activated by a word (Clausner & Croft, 1999;Croft & Cruse, 2004;Evans & Green, 2006;Franco et al, 2019. This was also supported by Eastern scholars (Nikitin, 2007;Zhabotinskaja, 2013).…”