Studies in Polish Linguistics vol. 12, 2017, issue 4, pp. 221–240 doi:10.4467/23005920SPL.17.011.8243 www.ejournals.eu/SPL Kamil Stachowski Jagiellonian University in Kraków An Experiment in Labelling Draw-a-Map Maps Abstract Apart from offering a contribution to perceptual dialectology of Poland, the paper discuss- es an experiment in which two groups were set a map drawing task. One group was given a map on which major cities were marked while the other a map with the main regions. The two maps combined from their answers have proven to be nothing alike, suggesting that this one detail in the design of the study can dramatically influence its results, and as such it needs to be paid particular attention and further investigated. Keywords perceptual dialectology, draw-a-map, methodology, Polish language Streszczenie Artykuł jest przyczynkiem do dialektologii percepcyjnej Polski, ale przede wszystkim dyskusją wyników eksperymentu, w którym dwie grupy poproszono o wypełnienie map. Jednej przedstawiono mapy z zaznaczonymi głównymi miastami, drugiej – z głównymi regionami geograficznymi. Mapy powstałe przez scalenie ich odpowiedzi okazały się dia- metralnie różne, co sugeruje, że ten jeden szczegół w sposobie przygotowania kwestiona- riusza może bardzo istotnie wpłynąć na wyniki badania, i jako taki winien być starannie przemyślany i dokładniej przebadany. Słowa kluczowe dialektologia percepcyjna, draw-a-map, metodologia, język polski 1. Introduction The field of perceptual dialectology concerns itself with how non-linguists per- ceive dialects and dialectal variation. It began in 1930s in the Netherlands but only gained greater impetus in 1980s and 1990s, owing to the works of D.R. Preston. One of the five methods he proposed is called draw-a-map (1989: 25); its basic idea is that respondents are given a map of the region under scrutiny, and are asked to mark in it the areas where they believe people speak differ- ently, incorrectly, funny, &c. Their answers are then superimposed to create a 222 Kamil Stachowski single heatmap or contour map which can be viewed as a graphical representa- tion of the popular perception of dialects and dialectal variation. One crucial detail which may, as shown by this paper, thoroughly alter the result of the study, is what kind of map respondents are given to mark dialect boundaries on. If it contains too many details, it can be confusing and uninten- ionally suggest answers; if it contains too little, respondents will only be able to draw on it in crude approximation and the combined result will likely be very inaccurate. Preston (1989: 25) mentions that in one of his surveys some re- spondents appeared to believe (wrongly) that dialect ranges coincide with state borders in the USA. Cukor-Avila et al. (2012: 12) performed a pilot study in Texas in which they used five different maps (with cities, cities and highways, counties, major regions, and blank ones), and obtained different results; un- fortunately, they do not discuss them in detail. Similarly, Alhazmi (2017) used two different maps for her study in Saudi Arabia (with cities and the desert, and blank ones), and obtained different results which she, too, does not review in detail. It is only from one of the anonymous reviewers that I learned about Lameli, Purschke and Kehrein (2008), a study conducted in Marburg, Germa- ny in 2005 and designed specifically to evaluate the effect that the labelling on the maps handed out to respondents has on their answers. They prepared as many as seven types of maps (with country borders, topography, rivers, state borders, major cities, cities and towns, and mixed ones with state borders, riv- ers, cities and towns), and found that the results varied quite significantly. It is therefore unfortunate that the differences in handling of the data, and general- ly in the adopted methodology of analysis render that study difficult to directly compare to the one presented in the current paper (one minor example of this different approach is mentioned in fn. 1). There appears to be no standard practice: some studies employ fine-grained maps (e.g. Geržotaitė and Čepaitienė 2016 marked all 60 municipalities in Lithuania), others are less specific (e.g. cities, waters and mountains as in Ca- laza Díaz et al. 2015 for Galicia, and Koch 2009 for western Russia), others less specific still (e.g. Theodoropoulou and Tyler 2014 only marked state borders of the Arab-speaking world), others have no more on them than the general region (e.g. Bucholtz et al. 2007 for California), and others leave respondents with entirely blank canvas (e.g. Würth 2014 for Buenos Aires). The present paper discusses an experiment which was similar in design to Lameli, Purschke and Kehrein (2008), only with fewer types of maps but more respondents for each. It was conducted in 2017 at the Maria Curie- Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland. Two groups of students were giv- en questionnaires in which the only difference were the labels on the map. The “cities map” contained thirteen major cities, the “regions map” twelve of the main geographical and historical regions (Fig. 1). Section 2 discuss- es the design of the forms, sections 3 and 4 the two parts of the experiment An Experiment in Labelling Draw-a-Map Maps 223 separately, section 5 compares them and concludes the experiment, and sec- tion 6 summarizes the main points. Some answers were excluded from the main part of the study; these are briefly discussed in the Appendix. As for the technical side, I used a method which is functionally almost equivalent to those presented in Montgomery and Stoeckle (2013) and Calaza Díaz (2015), only using Adobe Illustrator, and open-source GRASS GIS (grass. osgeo.org) and QGIS (www.qgis.org). * I want to express my gratitude to both all the students who agreed to partici- pate in this experiment, and to all the teachers who were so kind as to donate time from their classes. My particular thanks are due to Radosław Bomba, PhD, for his interest and willing help. I am also grateful to the anonymous re- viewers of this paper for their thoroughness and helpful remarks. Naturally, all the remaining errors are mine alone. 2. Questionnaire The questionnaire was designed in such a way as to make possible direct com- parison with the findings of Bounds (2010, and what is effectively its repeti- tion from 2015) and Stachowski [forthcoming]. It comprised three parts: so- cial background, map, and comments. See Fig. 1. The social background was reduced to six questions: • Age group, choice between ≤19, 20–29, 30–39, and ≥40; • Sex; • Education, choice between secondary and higher; • Occupation, tickbox for student and a field for other; • Place of birth; and • Childhood residence, the place where the respondent spent most of their childhood. The last question may seem a little inquisitive but I feel it is quite important. While many respondents were born and raised in the same place, or raised in a small village and born in the nearest larger town with a hospital in it, there were also quite a few who were born in one place but raised at the other end of the country. Their perception of the dialectal diversification must surely dif- fer from the view of those who spent their entire lives in one place and so, po- tentially, it could considerably hurt the representativeness of the study if their answers were mixed. The map was the second part of the questionnaire, and the core of the ex- periment. One version, the “cities map”, was modelled after the map used by 224 Kamil Stachowski Grupa wiekowa: ≤ 19 20–29 30–39 ≥ 40 Grupa wiekowa: ≤ 19 20–29 30–39 ≥ 40 Płeć: kobieta mężczyzna Płeć: kobieta mężczyzna Wykształcenie: średnie wyższe Wykształcenie: średnie wyższe Zawód: student inne: .............................. Zawód: student inne: .............................. Miejsce urodzenia: .............................. Miejsce urodzenia: .............................. Miejscowość dzieciństwa: .............................. Miejscowość dzieciństwa: .............................. (miejscowość, w której spędził/a Pan/i większość dzieciństwa) (miejscowość, w której spędził/a Pan/i większość dzieciństwa) Proszę zaznaczyć obszary, gdzie mówi się inaczej niż w reszcie kraju: Proszę zaznaczyć obszary, gdzie mówi się inaczej niż w reszcie kraju: Gdańsk z e y W r a r m o b i a m u y Olsztyn o u r z z P M a Szczecin s e a e i Białystok s Toruń K z s a W l i e l w k d o o Poznań p o l z o Warszawa s k a a P Łódź D o M l n Z i e y l u m Ś l ą b e i a Lublin s k l s Wrocław k a G ó r n Ś y o l s k a l ą s a ł o p Katowice k M Kraków Rzeszów P o d h a l e Uwagi: Uwagi: Bardzo dziękuję! Bardzo dziękuję! a) Cities map b) Regions map Figure 1. The questionnaires Bounds (2010, 2015) and Stachowski (forthcoming). It represented thirteen of the major cities so chosen as to be relatively evenly distributed across the coun- try and allow for easy orientation. The other version, the “regions map”, con- tained twelve of the main geographical and historical regions of Poland, also chosen primarily with the ease of orientation in mind. The instruction above the map said Proszę zaznaczyć obszary, gdzie mówi się inaczej niż w reszcie kraju (‘Please mark areas where people speak differently than in the rest of the country’). The word obszary ‘areas’ was chosen purpose- fully to encourage respondents to not only encircle or underline the city/region An Experiment in Labelling Draw-a-Map Maps 225 names, and also to avoid making suggestions by using a more specific term such as region ‘region’, which would have been in fact perhaps even more neutral in this context.