Mapping the Structure of Language Repertoires: on the Use of Sociolectometric Methods

Abstract

In this paper, we will discuss the importance of (socio)lectometric research in attempts to empirically map the range and internal structure of language repertoires, on both the level of the individual and the level of the speech community. Spoken data from 10 East Flemish women (city of Ghent) in 5 speech settings are analysed using 3 multivariate statistical techniques: correspondence regression, multidimensional scaling, and cluster analysis. These analyses show that on a community level, the language repertoire in Ghent can be called -following Auer (2005) -"diaglossic", with a continuum stretching from dialect to standard language with intermediate variations in between. In this continuum, focal points or prototypes can be identified, such as dialect, tussentaal and Standard Dutch. On the level of the individual language user, however, the repertoires are not necessarily diaglossic. Methodologically, we will argue that different multivariate techniques are ideally combined and complemented, as each technique has both advantages and drawbacks, and only structures emerging in multiple analyses can be considered robust. The Flemish case-study will moreover demonstrate that the techniques can only be usefully implemented in repertoire structure studies when stylistically stratified datasets are available and a diverse set of language features is observed.

‘Talking Very Properly Creates Such a Distance’: Exploring Style‐Shifting in Speech‐Language Therapists

“…Letting personal values shine through makes SLTs more vulnerable, placing them on an equal level as their clients, which is similar to the strategy of some therapists to share some personal information as a way to bond (Plexico et al, 2010). Furthermore, CBD does not only have its place within a relational context but also in a transactional context because for many clients it is the language they hear and use in everyday communication (e.g., Geeraerts & Van de Velde, 2013; Ghyselen et al, 2020; Plevoets, 2009). In line with Wolfram's argument (1992) that SLTs cannot ignore sociolinguistic variation, the present SLTs used CBD when functional communication was on the foreground.…”

“…Notably, the co‐existence of SBD and CBD in this region has been shown to create tensions regarding the preferred form in professional contexts (Delarue, 2016). While SBD—also named VRT‐Dutch after a broadcasting channel—is used in official documents or during news broadcasts, it is considered as an ideal that is almost ‘unattainable’ (Grondelaers & Van Hout, 2011) and most Flemish people, particularly the younger generations, commonly use CBD not only in their leisure time but also during professional activities such as formal interviews (Ghyselen et al., 2020; Plevoets, 2009). Descriptively speaking, CBD is widespread (Grondelaers & Van Hout, 2011; Plevoets, 2009), for example, 75% of first‐year Flemish SLT students produced diphthongization ‘errors’, which is just one speech feature that distinguishes CBD from SBD (D'haeseleer et al., 2016).…”