Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:50:56.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptual basemaps reloaded: The role basemaps play in eliciting perceptions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2019

Paulina Bounds  and
Charles J. Sutherland
Paulina Bounds*
Affiliation:
English Department, Tennessee Tech University, Cookeville, Tennessee, USA
Charles J. Sutherland
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, Tennessee Tech University, Cookeville, Tennessee, USA
*
*Mailing Address: 306 A Henderson Hall, English Department, Box 5053, Tennessee Tech University, Cookeville, TN 38501, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes the influence of various basemaps in Perceptual Dialectology, on the national and state levels. The 180 perceptual maps of the United States and Tennessee were divided into six types of basemaps; tabulated results show that basemaps play a different role on the national and state level. On the national level, basemaps that have features reminiscent of boundaries (state lines or interstates) bias the respondents’ answers. On the state level, on the other hand, the map features do not seem to influence the results in any discernible way: at times the informants seemingly go against the details present on the basemap. This striking difference indicates that, though the respondents rely on basemap details at the national level, where they may not have enough experience with the whole country, they don’t pay much attention to the state-level basemap details as they follow their own more detailed ideas about perceptions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistic Geography , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , October 2018 , pp. 145 - 166
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benson, Erica J. 2003. Folk linguistic perceptions and the mapping of dialect boundaries. American Speech 78(3). 307–330.Google Scholar
Bounds, Paulina. 2015. Perceptual regions in Poland: An investigation of Poznan speech perceptions. Journal of Linguistic Geography 3(1). 34–45.Google Scholar
Bounds, Paulina. 2010. Production versus perception of Polish speech: Poznan. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia dissertation.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary, Bermundez, Nancy, Fung, Victor, Edwards, Lisa & Vargas, Rosalva. 2007. Hella Nor Cal or totally So Cal? The perceptual dialectology of California. Journal of English Linguistics 35(4). 325–352.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary, Bermundez, Nancy, Fung, Victor, Vargas, Rosalva & Edwards, Lisa. 2008. The normative North and stigmatized South: Ideology and methodology in the perceptual dialectology of California. Journal of English Linguistics 36(1). 62–87.Google Scholar
Cukor-Avila, Patricia, Evans, Betsy, Long, Danny, Montgomery, Chris, Preston, Dennis R. & Stoeckle, Philipp, 2012. A geographical information systems (GIS) approach to perceptual dialectology data. New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 41, Indiana University.Google Scholar
D’Andrade, Roy. 1995. The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Betsy E . 2013. Seattle to Spokane: Mapping perceptions of English in Washington state. Journal of English Linguistics 41(3). 266–291.Google Scholar
Evans, Betsy E. 2011. “Seattletonian” to “faux hick”: Perceptions of English in Washington state. American Speech 86(4). 383–413.Google Scholar
Fridland, Valerie & Bartlett, Kathryn. 2006. Correctness, pleasantness, and degree of difference ratings across regions. American Speech 81(4). 358–386.Google Scholar
Fridland, Valerie, Bartlett, Kathryn & Kreuz, Roger. 2005. Making sense of variation: Pleasantness and education ratings of Southern vowel variants. American Speech 80(4). 366–387.Google Scholar
Gould, Peter & White, Rodney. 1986. Mental maps. 2nd edn. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, D. 2012. Count Overlapping Polygons for ArcGIS. Available at https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=1dd4a6832b3d40b494dbf8521cc5134cGoogle Scholar
Jeon, Lisa. 2011. Drawing boundaries and revealing language attitudes: The relationship of language and place in Korea. New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 40. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Jeon, Lisa & Cukor-Avila, Patricia. 2014. Urbanicity and language variation and change: Mapping dialect perceptions in and of Seoul. In Jennifer Cramer & Chris Montgomery (eds.), Cityscapes and perceptual dialectology: Global perspectives on non-linguists knowledge of the dialect landscape, 97–117. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, William. 2015. Language and complex systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, William. 2009. The Linguistics of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, William. 1996. Foundations of American English. In Edgard Schneider (ed.), Focus on the USA, 25–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lameli, Alfred, Purshke, Christoph & Kehrein, Roland. 2008. Stimulus und kognition: Zur aktivierung mentaler raumbilder. Linguistik Online 35(3). 55–86.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Chris. 2007. Northern English dialects: A perceptual approach. Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England: University of Sheffield Dissertation.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Chris & Stoeckle, Phillip. 2013. Geographical information systems and perceptual dialectology. Journal of Linguistic Geography 1(1). 52–85.Google Scholar
Niedzielski, Nancy, A. & Dennis, R. Preston. 2000. Folk Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis. 2017.The cognitive foundations of language regard. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 53(1).17–42.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis. 2016. Introduction. In Jennifer Cramer & Chris Montgomery (eds.), Cityscapes and perceptual dialectology: Global perspectives on non-linguists’ knowledge of the dialect landscape, 1–8. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis. 2016a. Whaddayaknow now? In Anna M. Babel (ed.), Awareness and control in sociolinguistic research, 177–199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis. 2015. Does language regard vary? In Alexei Prikhodkine & Dennis. R. Preston (eds.). Responses to language varieties: Variation, processes, and outcomes, 3–36. John Benjamins: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis. 2015a. The South: Still different. In Michael D. Picone & Catharine Evan Davies (eds.), New perspectives on language variety in the South: Historical and contemporary approaches, 311–326. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis. 2014. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t: The perception of languages and language varieties in a globalizing world. In Amei Koll-Stobbe & Sebastian Knospe (eds.), Language contact around the globe, 235–258. New York/Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis. 2011. The power of language regard — Discrimination, classification, comprehension, and production. Dialectologia Special Issue, II. 9–33. http://www.publicacions.ub.es/revistes/dialectologiaSP2011/ Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis. 1989. Perceptual dialectology: Nonlinguists’ views of areal linguistics. Providence: Fortis Publications.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In Paul R. Clyne, William F. Hanks & Carol L. Hofbauer (eds.), The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, April 20–21, 1979, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Zelinsky, Wilbur 1992. The cultural geography of the United States. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar