Skip to main content
Log in

Lexical Distance in LAMSAS

  • Published:
Computers and the Humanities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Linguistic Atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic States(LAMSAS) is admirably accessible for reanalysis (seehttp://hyde.park.uga.edu/lamsas/,Kretzschmar, 1994). The present paper applies alexical distance measure to assess the lexical relatedness of LAMSAS'ssites, a popular focus of investigation in the past(Kurath, 1949; Carver, 1989; McDavid, 1994). Several conclusions arenoteworthy: First, and least controversially, we note that LAMSAS isdialectometrically challenging at least due to the range of fieldworkers and questionnaires employed. Second, on the issue of whichareas ought to be recognized, we note that our investigations tend tosupport a three-wayNorth/South/Midlands division rather than a two-wayNorth/South division, i.e. they tend to support Kurath and McDavidrather than Carver, but this tendency is not conclusive. Third, weextend dialectometric technique in suggesting means of dealing withalternate forms and multiple responses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bloomfield L. (1933) Language. Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolognesi R., Heeringa W. (2001) De invloed van dominante talen op het lexicon en de fonologie van Sardische dialecten. Gramma/TTT: Tijdschrift voor Taalwetenschap, 9(1), pp. 45–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver C. M. (1987, 1989) American Regional Dialects: A Word Geography. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goebl H. (1984) Dialektometrische Studien: Anhand italoromanischer, rätoromanischer und galloromanischer Sprachmaterialien aus AIS und ALF. 3 Vol. Max Niemeyer, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooskens C., Heeringa W. (2003) Perceptual Evaluation of Levenshtein Dialect Distance Measurements using Norwegian Dialect Data. Language Variation and Change, submitted, 8/2002.

  • Heeringa W. (in prep.) Computational Comparison and Classification of Dialects. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Groningen.

  • Heeringa W., Nerbonne J., Kleiweg P. (2002) Validating Dialect Comparison Methods. In Gaul, W. and Ritter G. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 445–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain K., Dubes R. C. (1988) Algorithms for Clustering Data. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kretzschmar W. A. (ed.) (1994) Handbook of the Linguistic Atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic States. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal J. (1983, 1999) An Overview of Sequence Comparison. In Sankoff, D. and Kruskal, J. (eds.), Time Warps, String Edits and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison. CSLI, Stanford, pp. 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurath H. (1949) A Word Geography of the Eastern United States. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurath H., McDavid R. (1961) The Pronunciation of English in the Atlantic States: Based upon the Collections of the Linguistic Atlas of the Eastern United States. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labov W. (1991) The Three Dialects of English. In Eckert, P. (ed.), New Ways of Analyzing Sound Change. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning C., Schütze H. (1999) Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDavid R. (1994) Dialects of the LAMSAS Region. In Kretzschmar, W. A. (ed.), Handbook of the Linguistic Atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic States. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 147–153 (written in 1984, shortly before McDavid's death).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerbonne J., Heeringa W. (1998) Computationele Vergelijking en Classificatie van Dialecten. Taal en Tongval, 50/2, pp. 164–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerbonne J., Heeringa W., Kleiweg P. (1999) Edit Distance and Dialect Proximity. In Sankoff, D. and Kruskal, J. (eds.), Time Warps, String Edits and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison, 2nd ed. CSLI, Stanford, CA, pp. v–xv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerbonne J., Heeringa W., van den Hout E., van der Kooi P., Otten S., van de Vis W. (1996) Phonetic Distance between Dutch Dialects. In Durieux, G., Daelemans, W. and Gillis, S. (eds.), CLIN VI: Proc. from the Sixth CLIN Meeting. Center for Dutch Language and Speech, University of Antwerpen (UIA), Antwerpen, pp. 185–202. Also available as http://www.let.rug.nl/~nerbonne/ papers/dialects.ps.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider E. (1988) Qualitative vs. Quantitiative Methods of Area Delimitation in Dialectology: A Comparison Based on Lexical Data from Georgia and Alabama. Journal of English Linguistics, 21, pp. 175–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Séguy J. (1971) La relation entre la distance spatiale et la distance lexicale. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 35, pp. 335–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speelman D., Grondelaers S., Geeraerts D. (2003) Profile-Based Linguistic Uniformity as a Generic Method for Comparing Language Varieties. Computers and the Humanities, 37(3), pp. 317–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram W., Schilling-Estes N. (1998) American English. Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nerbonne, J., Kleiweg, P. Lexical Distance in LAMSAS. Computers and the Humanities 37, 339–357 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025042402655

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025042402655

Navigation