DOCSLIB.ORG

A Preliminary Corpus of Written Norwegian Dialect Use

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Preliminary Corpus of Written Norwegian Dialect Use NorDial: A Preliminary Corpus of Written Norwegian Dialect Use Jeremy Barnes∗ Petter Mæhlum∗ Samia Touileb∗ Department of Informatics Department of Informatics Department of Informatics University of Oslo University of Oslo University of Oslo [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract (2018) also point out that later interest in writing in dialect in media such as e-mail and text mes- Norway has a large amount of dialectal sages can be seen as an extension of the interest variation, as well as a general tolerance in dialectal writing in the 1980s (Bull et al., 2018, to its use in the public sphere. There are, 239). They also note that the tendency has been however, few available resources to study the strongest in the county of Trøndelag initially, this variation and its change over time and but later spreading to other parts of the country, in more informal areas, e.g. on social me- also spreading among adults. dia. In this paper, we propose a first step At the same time, there are two official main to creating a corpus of dialectal variation writing systems, i.e. Bokmal˚ and Nynorsk, which of written Norwegian. We collect a small offer prescriptive rules for how to write the spo- corpus of tweets and manually annotate ken variants. This leads to a situation where peo- them as Bokmal,˚ Nynorsk, any dialect, or ple who typically use their dialect when speaking a mix. We further perform preliminary ex- often revert to one of the written standards when periments with state-of-the-art models, as writing. However, despite there being only two well as an analysis of the data to expand official writing systems, there is considerable vari- this corpus in the future. Finally, we make ation within each system, as the result of years of the annotations and models available for language policies. Today we can find both ‘rad- future work. ical’ and ‘conservative’ versions of each writing 1 Introduction system, where the radical ones try to bridge the gap between the two norms, while the conservative Norway has a large tolerance towards dialectal versions attempt to preserve differences. However, variation (Bull et al., 2018) and, as such, one can it is still natural that these standards have a regu- find examples of dialectal use in many areas of larizing effect on the written varieties of people the public sphere, including politics, news media, who normally speak their dialect in most situa- and social media. Although there has been much tions (Gal, 2017). As such, it would be interest- variation in writing Norwegian, since the debut of ing to know to what degree dialect users deviate Nynorsk in the 1850’s, the acceptance of dialect from these established norms and use dialect traits use in certain settings is relatively new. The offi- when writing informal texts, e.g. on social media. cial language policy after World War 2 was to in- This could also provide evidence of the vitality of clude forms belonging to all layers of society into certain dialectal traits. the written norms, and a “dialect wave” has been In this paper, we propose a first step towards going on since the 1970’s (Bull et al., 2018, 235- creating a corpus of written dialectal Norwegian 238). by identifying the best methods to collect, clean, From 1980 to 1983 there was an ongoing project and annotate tweets into Bokmal,˚ Nynorsk, or di- called Den første lese- og skriveopplæring pa˚ di- alectal Norwegian. We concentrate on geolects, alekt ‘The first training in reading and writing in rather than sociolects, as we observe these are eas- dialect’ (Bull, 1985), where primary school stu- ier to collect on Twitter, i.e. the traits that iden- dents were allowed to use their own dialect in tify a geolect are more likely to be written than school, with Tove Bull as project leader. Bull et al. those that identify a sociolect. This is a necessary ∗The authors have equal contribution. simplification, as dialect users rarely write with full phonetic awareness, making it impossible to Corpus-related work on Norwegian dialects has find dialect traits that lie mainly in the phonol- mainly focused on spoken varieties. There are two ogy. As such, our corpus relies more on lexical larger corpora available for Norwegian: the newer and clear phonetic traits to determine whether a Nordic Dialect Corpus (Johannessen et al., 2009), tweet is written in a dialect. which contains spoken data from several Nordic We collect a corpus of 1,073 tweets which languages, and the Language Infrastructure made are manually annotated as Bokmal˚ , Nynorsk, Accessible (LIA) Corpus, which in addition to Dialect, or Mixed and perform a first set of Norwegian also contains Sami´ language clips.2 experiments to classify tweets as containing di- There is also the Talk of Norway Corpus (Lap- alectal traits using state-of-the-art methods. We poni et al., 2018), which contains transcriptions find that fine-tuning a Norwegian BERT model of parliamentary speeches in many language va- (NB-BERT) leads to the best results. We perform rieties. While they contain rich dialectal informa- an analysis of the data to find useful features for tion, this information is not kept in writing, as they searching for tweets in the future, confirming sev- are normalized to Bokmal˚ and Nynorsk. These re- eral linguistic observations of common dialectal sources are useful for working with speech tech- traits and find that certain dialectal traits (those nology and questions about Norwegian dialects as from Trøndelag) are more likely to be written, sug- they are spoken, but they are likely not sufficient gesting that since their traits strongly diverge from to answer research questions about how dialects Bokmal˚ and Nynorsk, they are more likely to de- are expressed when written. The transcriptions viate from the established norms when composing in these corpora also differ from written dialect tweets. Finally, we release the annotations and di- sources in the sense that they are in a way truer alect prediction models for future research.1 representations of the dialects in question. In writ- ing dialect representations tend to focus more on 2 Related Work a few core words, even if the actual phonetic real- The importance of incorporating language varia- ization of certain words could have been marked tion into natural language processing approaches in writing. has gained visibility in recent years. The VarDial 3 Data collection workshop series deals with computational meth- ods and language resources for closely related lan- In this first round of annotations, we search for guages, language varieties, and dialects and have tweets containing Bokmal,˚ Nynorsk, and Dialect offered shared tasks on language variety identifi- terms (See Appendix A), discarding tweets that cation for Romanian, German, Uralic languages are shorter than 10 tokens. The terms were col- (Zampieri et al., 2019), among others. Simi- lected by gathering frequency bigram lists from larly, there have been shared tasks on Arabic di- the Nordic Dialect Corpus (Johannessen et al., alect identification (Bouamor et al., 2019; Abdul- 2009) from the written representation of the di- Mageed et al., 2020). To our knowledge, however, alectal varieties. there are no available written dialect identification Two native speakers annotated these tweets with corpora for Norwegian. four labels: Bokmal˚ , Nynorsk, Dialect, and Many successful approaches to dialect identifi- Mixed. The Mixed class refers to tweets where cation use linear models (e.g. Support Vector Ma- there is a clear separation of dialectal and non- chines, Multinomial Naive Bayes) with word and dialectal texts, e.g. reported speech in Bokmal˚ character n-gram features (Wu et al., 2019; Jauhi- with comments in Dialect. This class can be ainen et al., 2019a), while neural approaches often very problematic for our classification task, as the perform poorly (Zampieri et al., 2019) (see Jauhi- content can be a mix of all the other three classes. ainen et al. (2019b) for a full discussion). More We nevertheless keep it, as it still reflects one of recent uses of pretrained language models based the written representations of Norwegian. on transformer architectures (Devlin et al., 2019), In Example 1, we show two phrases from the however, have shown promise (Bernier-Colborne Nordic Dialect Corpus, from a speaker in Ballan- et al., 2019). gen, Nordland county. We show it in dialectal 1Available at https://github.com/jerbarnes/ 2https://www.hf.uio.no/iln/english/research/projects/language- norwegian_dialect infrastructure-made-accessible/ Bokmal˚ Nynorsk Dialect Mixed Total Bokmal-Dialect˚ Nynorsk-Dialect Train 348 174 274 52 848 Dev 52 20 30 4 106 ‘e’ 288.7 ‘e’ 131.8 Test 38 31 35 6 110 ‘æ’ 188.0 ‘æ’ 92.5 Total 438 225 348 62 1,073 ‘ska’ 55.0 ‘ska’ 23.9 ‘hu’ 36.6 ‘ei’ 18.9 Table 1: Data statistics for the corpus, including ‘te’ 28.9 ‘berre’ 14.5 number of tweets per split. (‘æ’, ‘e’) 27.5 ‘hu’ 14.4 ‘ka’ 22.0 ‘heilt’ 13.8 ‘mæ’ 21.6 (‘æ’, ‘e’) 13.2 ‘gar’˚ 19.9 ‘meir’ 12.3 ‘va’ 12.4 ‘mæ’ 11.9 form (a) and the Bokmal˚ (b) transcription, but with added punctuation marks. To exemplify the two Table 2: Top 10 features and χ2 values between other categories we have manually translated it to Bokmal˚ – Dialect tweets and Nynorsk – Dialect. Nynorsk (c) and added a mixed version (d), as well as an English translation (e) for reader comprehen- sion. (1) (a) Æ ha løsst a˚ fær dit. Æ har løsst a˚ ga˚ pa˚ Nynorsk, and speakers might switch between them skole dær. when speaking or writing. Similarly, certain el- (b) Jeg har lyst a˚ fare dit.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Norsk Ordbok - the Crown of Nynorsk Lexicography?
    Lars S. Vik0r, Sectionfor Norwegian Lexicography, University ofOslo Norsk Ordbok - the Crown of Nynorsk Lexicography? Abstract Norsk Ordbok 'Norwegian Dictionary' is a multi-volume dictionary of the Norwegian standard variety Nynorsk and the Norwegian dialects. It is one of the very few dictionaries which cover both a written standard language and the oral dialects on which this standard is based. It was initiated around 1930, based on dialect material collected by volunteers and stored in a vast card archive, and on a variety of written sources. At present, three oftwelve planned volumes have appeared, reaching into g. The paper gives a historical outline of the project, followed by a brief description of its structure and the types of information it gives. This is exemplified by the treatment of one particular word, bunad. Finally, some fundamental problems are briefly discussed: 1) the selection of lemmas, 2) the character of the sources, 3) the treatment of dialect forms, 4) the sequence of definitions. The full title of Norsk Ordbok is Norsk Ordbok. Ordbok over det norske folkemâlet og det nynorske skriftmâlet 'Norwegian Dictionary. A dic­ tionary of the Norwegian popular language [i.e. the Norwegian dialects], and the Nynorsk written language'. This title at once indicates the dual aspect of the dictionary: It gives integrated coverage of both oral dialects and a written standard language. This dual aspect is the most special distinguishing feature of Norsk Ordbok as a lexicographic work. Normally, dictionaries cover written standard languages or some aspect of them (or, in the case of pro­ nouncing dictionaries, oral standard language).
    [Show full text]
  • Dialect Acquisition and Migration in Norway – Questions of Authenticity, Belonging and Legitimacy
    Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development ISSN: 0143-4632 (Print) 1747-7557 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20 Dialect acquisition and migration in Norway – questions of authenticity, belonging and legitimacy Unn Røyneland & Bård Uri Jensen To cite this article: Unn Røyneland & Bård Uri Jensen (2020): Dialect acquisition and migration in Norway – questions of authenticity, belonging and legitimacy, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2020.1722679 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1722679 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 31 Jan 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 169 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmm20 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1722679 Dialect acquisition and migration in Norway – questions of authenticity, belonging and legitimacy Unn Røynelanda and Bård Uri Jensena,b* aDepartment of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, Center for Multilingualism in Society Across the Lifespan - MultiLing (CoE), University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; bDepartment of Education, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Hamar, Norway ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Norway is known for its dialect diversity and also for the fact that dialects, Received 13 January 2020 on the whole, are cherished and used within all social domains and by Accepted 23 January 2020 people in all social strata. Previous studies indicate that also immigrants KEYWORDS to Norway tend to acquire and use local speech, and that this generally Dialect use; visual-verbal is positively perceived.
    [Show full text]
  • Variation Versus Standardisation. the Case of Norwegian Bokmal: Some
    Eskil Hanssen Variation versus standardisation The case ofNorwegian bokmàl: some sociolinguistic trends Abstract The articIc deals with the devclopment of the Norwegian standard bokmäl and the language situation in Norway at present. Bokmäl came to light during the laller half of the 19th century, through refonns of the prevailing wrillen Danish, at the same time as the other Norwegian standard, the dialcct-based nynorsk. The prin­ ciplcs and ideologies of the bokmäl refonns arc discussed. The second part of the article deals with the interaction between wriUen and spoken varieties, and their status in society. Examples of prescnt-day linguistic changes and the sociolinguistic forces behind them are discussed. Historical background of bokTrnU Norway has been characterised as a "laboratory" for language planning (Vik~r 1988:7), and this metaphor may seem appropriate for more than one reason. The history of language standardisation is much shorter than in most other European countrics, only about 150 years old. On the other hand, language planning in the modem sen sc of the word (Fishman 1974:79, Haugen 1979:111) has been very actively pursued, and has concerned both wriUen and spoken language. The language planning activities in the 19th century were conducted along two main lines, resulLing in two wrillen standards, presently called bokmal and nynorsk.! It is not possiblc to go into detail about the historical background within the limited scope of this article. (An extensive overview is given by Haugen 1966, sec also Venäs 1990.) Instead I shall discuss the case of bokmal, sketching its origin, development, and present status.
    [Show full text]
  • SAS1 6.Dialects and Sociolects of Spoken Norwegian
    Dialects and sociolects of spoken Norwegian SAS1. March 11 th 2016 “The dialect paradise Norway – a truism with modifications” Mæhlum, B. and Røyneland, U. (2009) 1 How do I say ‘I’ in Norwegian? e eg æ æg æi æig i je jæ jei How do I say ‘not’ in Norwegian? 2 4 dimensions of dialect. Approaching the Norwegian definition of ’dialect’ 1. The user dimension: Who speaks dialect? 2. The delimitation dimension: How do we delimit one dialect from another linguistically and geographically? 3. The changeability dimension: What is the dialect’s potential for change? 4. The identity/attitude dimension: How do we view dialectal identity and dialectal attitude? The Norwegian concept of ”dialect” 1) Everyone speaks dialect (urban and rural, geolects and sociolects) 2) The ”exact” borders between dialects are not so important 3) The dialects are continuously changing, and this dialect change does not necessarily lead to dialect death 4) Positive views of dialects: attached to local identity and personal identity 3 The (traditional) dialectological approach 4 main groups: Northern Norwegian (nordnorsk), Central Norwegian (trøndersk), Western Norwegian (vestlandsk), and Eastern Norwegian (østnorsk). Or 8 groups: Northern Norwegian > Nordlandsk No. and Troms and Finnmarks No . Midland Norwegian (midtlandsk) is a separate group, and Western Norwegian > 1) North-Western Nor. (nordvestlandsk) and 2) South-western Nor. (sørvestlandsk) and South Norwegian (sørlandsk) 4 Reasons for geographical variation • Social, cultural and administrative unities = linguistic unities • Geography: Mountains divide, fiords, rivers and sea unites! • Migration (eks. Bardu and Målselv) Reasons for spotted maps, with several dialect geographical ”islands” a) If it is an archaic feature: these are ’relict areas’.
    [Show full text]
  • The LIA Treebank of Spoken Norwegian Dialects
    The LIA Treebank of Spoken Norwegian Dialects Lilja Øvrelidy, Andre Kasen˚ yz, Kristin Hagenz, Anders Nøklestadz, Per Erik Solberg∗ and Janne Bondi Johannessenz y Department of Informatics, University of Oslo z Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo ∗ Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Arts and Ideas, University of Oslo fliljao,andrekaag@ifi.uio.no, fkristin.hagen,j.b.johannessen, [email protected], p.e.solberg@ifikk.uio.no Abstract This article presents the LIA treebank of transcribed spoken Norwegian dialects. It consists of dialect recordings made in the period between 1950–1990, which have been digitised, transcribed, and subsequently annotated with morphological and dependency-style syntactic analysis as part of the LIA (Language Infrastructure made Accessible) project at the University of Oslo. In this article, we describe the LIA material of dialect recordings and its transcription, transliteration and further morphosyntactic annotation. We focus in particular on the extension of the native NDT annotation scheme to spoken language phenomena, such as pauses and various types of disfluencies, and present the subsequent conversion of the treebank to the Universal Dependencies scheme. The treebank currently consists of 13,608 tokens, distributed over 1396 segments taken from three different dialects of spoken Norwegian. The LIA treebank annotation is an on-going effort and future releases will extend on the current data set. Keywords: treebanks, spoken language, dialects, Norwegian,
    [Show full text]
  • Brit Mæhlum and Unn Røyneland: Det Norske Dialektlandskapet
    NLT 2016-1 ombrukket 3.qxp_Layout 1 13.09.2016 12.24 Side 117 Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift · Årgang 34 · 2016 117 Brit Mæhlum and Unn Røyneland: Det norske dialektlandskapet. Oslo: Cappelen Damm 2012,199 pp. In setting about reviewing an undergraduate textbook on dialects in Norway, I am faced with some choices. I can evaluate its pedagogical value. Or else I can seize the opportunity to present the book for the benefit of a non- Norwegian reading audience, helping to make information about Norwegian dialects available to a wider readership. And finally, I can take the book as a piece of scholarly writing and evaluate it as such. Potential readers of this review will most likely want to know what the book tells us about language variation in what is often referred to as a ‘sociolinguistic paradise’ (Røyneland 2009) – and this is the principal approach I will take. There are a number of English-language articles about particular aspects of Norway’s sociolinguistic reality, including several by the present authors (e.g. Røyneland 2009; Mæhlum 1996, 2005), as well as a handful of monograph- length studies of dialect change by foreign scholars (e.g. Kerswill 1994; Strand 2009). Perhaps not surprisingly, there are no truly comprehensive foreign- language treatments of Norwegian dialects. Bandle (1973) fulfills this role to some extent, while Husby (ed.) (2008) is an account of six urban dialects for the benefit of foreign learners. There are a number of book-length treatments in Norwegian, the more recent being Sandøy (1985) and Skjekkeland (2005), both of which are used in university curricula.
    [Show full text]
  • Reported Language Attitudes Among Norwegian Speaking In-Migrants in Tromsø
    Acta Borealia A Nordic Journal of Circumpolar Societies ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sabo20 Reported language attitudes among Norwegian speaking in-migrants in Tromsø Monica Sætermo & Hilde Sollid To cite this article: Monica Sætermo & Hilde Sollid (2021): Reported language attitudes among Norwegian speaking in-migrants in Tromsø, Acta Borealia, DOI: 10.1080/08003831.2021.1911209 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08003831.2021.1911209 © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 03 May 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 102 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sabo20 ACTA BOREALIA https://doi.org/10.1080/08003831.2021.1911209 Reported language attitudes among Norwegian speaking in-migrants in Tromsø Monica Sætermoa and Hilde Sollidb aDepartment of Education, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway; bDepartment of Language and Culture, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Today, in an era of increased mobility and migration, there is also Received 18 November 2020 increased in-migration within regions and countries. In the case Accepted 11 March 2021 of Norway, there is high tolerance for dialect use, and in this KEYWORDS context, it is interesting to ask which kinds of sociolinguistic Language attitudes; strategies in-migrants consider to be available given their current language ideologies; situation. This article explores the reported language attitudes sociolinguistic strategies; in- from the point of view of people who have moved to Tromsø migration; Norwegian from other parts of Norway.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nordic Dialect Corpus – an Advanced Research Tool
    The Nordic Dialect Corpus – an advanced research tool Janne Bondi Johannessen Joel Priestley University of Oslo University of Oslo Oslo, Norway Oslo, Norway [email protected] [email protected] Kristin Hagen Tor Anders Åfarli University of Oslo Norwegian Univ. of Science & Tech. Oslo, Norway Trondheim, Norway [email protected] [email protected] Øystein Alexander Vangsnes University of Tromsø Tromsø, Norway [email protected] 2 Introduction Abstract In this paper, we describe the first, completed part of the Nordic Dialect Corpus. The corpus The paper describes the first part of the Nordic has a variety of features that combined makes it a Dialect Corpus. This is a tool that combines a very advanced tool for language researchers. number of useful features that together makes These features include: Linguistic contents (dia- it a unique and very advanced resource for re- lects from five closely related languages), anno- searchers of many fields of language search. tation (tagging and two types of transcription), The corpus is web-based and features full search interface (advanced possibilities for com- audio-visual representation linked to tran- bining a large array of search criteria and results scripts. presentation in an intuitive and simple interface), many search variables (linguistics-based, infor- 1 Credits mant-based, time-based), multimedia display (linking of sound and video to transcriptions), The Nordic Dialect Corpus is the result of close display of informant details (number of words collaboration between the partners in the re- and other information on informants), advanced search networks Scandinavian Dialect Syntax results handling (concordances, collocations, and Nordic Centre of Excellence in Microcom- counts and statistics shown in a variety of parative Syntax.
    [Show full text]
  • Dialects of the North Germanic Language Group
    Scandinavian language dialects of the North Germanic language group 1 What is Norwegian? When Einar Haugen listed his ecological questions about a language, he was thinking about “Norwegian”, but he wasn’t even sure how to define “Norwegian”, because Norwegians had several different ways of speaking, and Norway even had two official written languages. Also, Haugen knew that the “Norwegian” he heard in the USA was different from the “Norwegian” he heard in Norway; and yet he could easily communicate with various types of Norwegians, as well as with Danes and with others in Scandinavia. To understand this situation, let’s begin, as Haugen did, by considering the history of the Norwegian dialects. Where did they come from? (1) What is the historical linguistic description of the language? How is it diachronically related to other languages? 2 the North Germanic language history Today’s North Germanic dialects are descendent from Old Norse. The map shows the two Old Norse dialect areas, as well as other Germanic dialect areas of the early 10th century: Old West Norse dialect Old East Norse dialect Old Gutnish Old English Crimean Gothic Other Germanic languages (somewhat mutually intelligible with Old Norse) The Old West Norse dialect was also spoken in Greenland. 3 current Scandinavian dialects These 18 Scandinavian dialects, spoken in 5 European countries, form a dialect continuum of mutual intelligibility. Elfdalian is sometimes considered a West Scandinavian dialect. In general, the East Scandinavian dialects are spoken in Denmark and Sweden, and the other dialects are spoken in Norway, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. 4 insular vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Dialect Revalorization and Maximal Orthographic Distinction in Rural Norwegian Writing
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Anthropology: Faculty Publications and Other Works Faculty Publications 9-1-2018 Tradition as Innovation: Dialect Revalorization and Maximal Orthographic Distinction in Rural Norwegian Writing Thea R. Strand Loyola University Chicago, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/anthropology_facpubs Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Strand, Thea R.. Tradition as Innovation: Dialect Revalorization and Maximal Orthographic Distinction in Rural Norwegian Writing. Multilingua, 38, 1: 51-68, 2018. Retrieved from Loyola eCommons, Anthropology: Faculty Publications and Other Works, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/multi-2018-0006 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology: Faculty Publications and Other Works by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. © De Gruyter 2018 Multilingua 2019; 38(1): 51–68 Thea R. Strand* Tradition as innovation: Dialect revaloriza- tion and maximal orthographic distinction in rural Norwegian writing https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2018-0006 Abstract: In rural Valdres, Norway, the traditional regional dialect, called Valdresmål, has become an important resource for popular style and local development projects. Stigmatized through much of the twentieth century for its association with poor, rural, “backward” farmers and culture, Valdresmål has been thoroughly revalorized, with particularly high status among local youth and those involved in business and tourism. While today’s parents and grand- parents attest to historical pressures to adopt normative urban linguistic forms, many in Valdres now proclaim dialect pride and have re-embraced spoken Valdresmål in various forms of public, interdialectal communication.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Kerswill 'A Dialect with 'Great Inner Strength'? the Perception of Nativeness in the Bergen Speech
    A dialect with ‘great inner strength’? The perception * of nativeness in the Bergen speech community Paul Kerswill School of Linguistics & Applied Language Studies, The University of Reading Abstract. This article presents the results of a listening experiment designed (1) to test whether or not ‘natives’ of a speech community (here, Bergen in Norway) can judge speakers of their dialect as ‘native’ or ‘non-native’ and (2) to test their perception of degrees of mixing of their own dialect with another (that of the so-called ‘Stril’ rural districts surrounding Bergen). The results indicate that while the perception of nativeness is not an all-or- nothing matter, Bergen is more ‘perceptually focused’ than many other urban speech communities. It is found that the most ‘Bergenised’ Stril voice on the test tape is rated as ‘native’ by most of the judges, suggesting that fluency in a second dialect is possible at a relatively late age (in this case, 16). In the perception of dialect mixing, it was found that morpho- lexical features combine with other features in a complex way to lead to a ‘percept’ of a voice sample: rather than the features from different levels always co-varying, a low use of morpho-lexical features from the rural dialect may be compensated for by a high use of other rural features. The converse is also possible, leading to similar overall percepts. Finally, a model of the judges’ attribution process is suggested. 1. Introduction – the ‘speech community’ This article addresses an issue which lies at the centre of Labovian sociolinguistics: that of the ‘speech community’.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diffusion of a New Morphology in Norwegian Dialects
    The Diffusion of a New Morphology in Norwegian Dialects Helge Sand0y Abstract The most obvious tendency in modern Norwegian dialect change is regional levelling. It is de- pendent on the urbanisation process which has prevailed at different times in the various commu- nities. Linguistically — in our case in noun morphology — the process seems to be more in the nature of simplification than of convergence towards the prestigious Standard. The aim of this paper is to discuss the pattern of this levelling process, and to test a hypothe- sis of nrban jumping. This will be done in detail for the region of Mid-Norway, with Trondheim at the top of a hierarchy and other towns and centres at subordinated nodes. The noun morphology of five dialects in Mid-Norway will be compared. The regional capi- tal of Trondheim has a fairly complex System compared to its subordinated towns and centres. The subordinated towns therefore seem to have been exposed to simplifications independent of the Trondheim dialect, which clearly contradict the urhan jumping hypothesis. Accordingly, a new hypothesis is suggested: Within a region, the dominating centre exerts some influence on the direction of language change, but the simplification processes manifest themselves first in new centres, i.e. in subordinaled nodes in the regional hierarchy. Today the Trondheim dialect seems to be adopting certain simplifications, which in the other towns and centres have been known for generations. From these bare facts one could perhaps deduce that the regional centre of Trondheim is sensitive to changes in the subordinated towns. This conclusion is strengthened by data from Northern Norway, but not from Eastern Norway, where innovations seem to follow a different route.
    [Show full text]