1 / 17

We Speak Unique: Folk Linguistic Perceptions and Attitudes of Dialect in Japan

We Speak Unique: Folk Linguistic Perceptions and Attitudes of Dialect in Japan. Pat Maher. Introduction: Research Area. Perceptual Dialectology Dialect in Japan Perceptual vs. Production Based-Data “Dialect Identity”. Aims/Justification. Study of dialect primarily production data-based

caia
Download Presentation

We Speak Unique: Folk Linguistic Perceptions and Attitudes of Dialect in Japan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. We Speak Unique:Folk Linguistic Perceptions and Attitudes of Dialect in Japan Pat Maher

  2. Introduction: Research Area • Perceptual Dialectology • Dialect in Japan • Perceptual vs. Production Based-Data • “Dialect Identity”

  3. Aims/Justification • Study of dialect primarily production data-based • Perceptual dialectology primarily focused on national level • Regionally focused perceptual dialectology has both confirmed and expanded on production data-based studies • Calls for dialect identity studies in Japan • Perceptions of “where” AND “what” constitutes standard • How far does the area of “my dialect” expand? • How does one’s “dialect identity” determine perceptions?

  4. References • Benson, Erica J. (2003). Folk Linguistic Perceptions and the Mapping of Dialect Boundaries. American Speech, 78, 3, 307-330. • Inoue, F. (1995). Classification of Dialects by Image: English and Japanese. In Preston, D.R. (1999). Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology, Vol. 1 (pp. 147-159). Amsterdam: Benjamins. • Iwamoto, M. (1983). 宮崎県の方言(Dialects of Miyazaki Prefecture). Miyazaki University. http://www.miyazaki-c.ed.jp/himukagaku/unit/yume_05/page3.html • Long, D. (1997). The Perception of “Standard” as the Speech Variety of a Specific Region: Computer-Produced Composite Maps of Perceptual Dialect Regions. In Thomas, A. (1997). Current Methods in Dialectology (pp. 256-270). Bangor: University of Wales. • Long, D. (1999). Mapping Nonlinguists’ Evaluations of Japanese Language Variation. In Preston, D.R. (1999). Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology, Vol. 1 (pp. 199-226). Amsterdam: Benjamins. • Mase, Y. (1964). Dialect Consciousness and Dialect Divisions: Examples in the Nagano-Gifu Boundary Region. In Preston, D.R.(1999). Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology, Vol.1 (pp. 71-99). Amsterdam: Benjamins. • Preston, D. (1988). Methods in the Study of Dialect Perceptions. Methods in Dialectology, 373-395. • Sibata, T. (1959). Consciousness of Dialect Boundaries. In Preston, D.R. (1999). Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology, Vol.1 (pp. 39-62). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  5. Research Questions • How do perceptions of regional dialect boundaries compare with prior production data-based dialect boundaries? • How do perceptions of national dialect boundaries compare between Miyazaki and Aichi Prefecture respondents? • What similarities/differences in attitudes do Miyazaki and Aichi Prefecture respondents show in regards to: • Standard Japanese – “Where” and “What” • Correctness & Pleasantness of Dialects throughout Japan • Correctness & Pleasantness of Personal Dialect • Uniqueness of Personal Dialect

  6. Methodology (Subjects) • 30 Subjects from Miyazaki Prefecture • Have lived in Miyazaki from at least age 5 • Miyazaki University Students (age 18-22) • 15 Male & 15 Female • 30 Subjects from Aichi Prefecture • Have lived in Aichi from at least age 5 • Chubu University Students (age 18-22) • 15 Male & 15 Female • Subjects have no educational background in the study of dialect

  7. Methodology (Materials/Instruments) • Regional Dialect Study • Perceptual Map Task • Degree-of-Difference Task • National Dialect Study • Perceptual Map Task • Identify “Standard Japanese” Area • Degree-of-Correctness/Pleasantness Task • Dialect Identity Study • Focus Group Interviews

  8. Methodology (Materials/Instruments)

  9. Methodology (Materials/Instruments)

  10. Methodology (Procedure) • Regional Dialect Study • Students asked to demarcate areas where people speak similarly or differently (drawing lines, circles, etc.) • Students asked to label each area (name, descriptor, etc.) • Students complete degree-of-difference task • 20 pre-selected cities in and around each respective prefecture • Give each city a rank between 1-4 • 1: Speak exactly like me • 2: Speak a little differently • 3: Speak somewhat differently • 4: Speak quite differently

  11. Methodology (Procedure) • National Dialect Study • Students asked to demarcate areas where people speak similarly or differently (drawing lines, circles, etc.) • Students asked to label each area (name, descriptor, etc.) • Students identify area(s) where “Standard Japanese” is spoken • Degree-of-Correctness/Pleasantness Task: • Give each demarcated area a rank between 1-4:

  12. Methodology (Procedure) • Dialect Identity Study (Number of Subjects Undecided) • At least a week after perceptual map tasks have been completed • Focus group interviews to ask questions about maps and illicit: • “What” do respondents feel constitutes “Standard Japanese?” • How conscious are respondents of others’ dialects? • How conscious are respondents of their own dialects? • How “correct” do respondents view their own dialects? • How do respondents feel others view their own (respondents’) dialects? • How widespread or limited do respondents view their “Dialect Area?” • …and probably more in aiming to paint a picture of dialect identity… • Map results will have great bearing on direction of interviews

  13. Methodology (Data & Analysis) • Regional perceptual maps averaged into consensus maps • Consensus maps compared with production data-based maps for each region respectively • Regional degree-of-difference task figures averaged • Figures analyzed to measure perceptions of “my dialect” area • National perceptual maps averaged into consensus maps • Miyazaki and Aichi consensus maps compared • National degree-of-correctness/pleasantness figures averaged • Miyazaki and Aichi figures compared • Focus group interview data transcribed • Similarities/Differences between Miyazaki and Aichi respondents discussed

  14. Anticipated Problems/Limitations • Unfamiliarity/unawareness of language variation • Guessing rather than expression of perceptions on map tasks • Abundance of outliers • Inability to create consensus perceptions for areas • Lack of accessible subjects for Miyazaki focus groups • Silence/unwillingness to contribute opinions in focus groups • Conforming to opinions of others during focus groups • Too much data

  15. Expected Findings • Regional dialect boundary perceptions will be similar to production data-based boundaries, but more detailed • Miyazaki respondents will perceive a greater degree of difference in their region than Aichi respondents • Miyazaki respondents will perceive a larger area for “Standard Japanese” than Aichi respondents • Miyazaki respondents will perceive “Standard Japanese” as more correct/pleasant than Aichi respondents

  16. Expected Findings (continued) • Aichi respondents will perceive a larger “my dialect” area than Miyazaki respondents • Miyazaki respondents will perceive their respective dialects as “more unique” compared to Aichi respondents

  17. ご意見をお聞かせてください I look forward to your constructive feedback. Have a lovely day.

More Related