Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T09:25:05.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical Differences between Tuscan Dialects and Standard Italian: Accounting for Geographicand Sociodemographic Variation using Generalized Additive Mixed Modeling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Martijn Wieling,
Simonetta Montemagni,
John Nerbonne and
R. Harald Baayen
Martijn Wieling*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen and University of Tübingen
Simonetta Montemagni*
Affiliation:
Istituto di Linguistica Computationale ‘Antonio Zampolli CNR
John Nerbonne*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen and University of Freiburg
R. Harald Baayen*
Affiliation:
University of Tübingen and University of Alberta
*
Wieling, University of Groningen Department of Humanities Computing P.O. Box 716 9700 AS Groningen, The Netherlands [wieling@gmail.com]
[simonetta.montemagni@ilc.cnr.it]
[j.nerbonne@rug.nl]
[harald.baayen@uni-tuebingen.de]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study uses a generalized additive mixed-effects regression model to predict lexical differences in Tuscan dialects with respect to standard Italian. We used lexical information for 170 concepts used by 2,060 speakers in 213 locations in Tuscany. In our model, geographical position was found to be an important predictor, with locations more distant from Florence having lexical forms more likely to differ from standard Italian. In addition, the geographical pattern varied significantly for low-versus high-frequency concepts and older versus younger speakers. Younger speakers generally used variants more likely to match the standard language. Several other factors emerged as significant. Male speakers as well as farmers were more likely to use lexical forms different from standard Italian. In contrast, higher-educated speakers used lexical forms more likely to match the standard. The model also indicates that lexical variants used in smaller communities are more likely to differ from standard Italian. The impact of community size, however, varied from concept to concept. For a majority of concepts, lexical variants used in smaller communities are more likely to differ from the standard Italian form. For a minority of concepts, however, lexical variants used in larger communities are more likely to differ from standard Italian. Similarly, the effect of the other community- and speaker-related predictors varied per concept. These results clearly show that the model succeeds in teasing apart different forces influencing the dialect landscape and helps us to shed light on the complex interaction between the standard Italian language and the Tuscan dialectal varieties. In addition, this study illustrates the potential of generalized additive mixed-effects regression modeling applied to dialect data.

Keywords

Tuscan dialectslexical variationgeneralized additive modelingmixed-effects regression modelinggeographical variation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , September 2014, pp. 669 - 692
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agresti, Alan. 2007. An introduction to categorical data analysis. 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/0470114754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akaike, Hirotugu. 1974. A new look at the statistical identification model. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19. 716–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammon, Ulrich. 2004. Standard variety. Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, 2nd edn., ed. by Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, Mattheier, Klaus J., and Trudgill, Peter, vol. 1, 273–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110141894.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Davidson, Doug J.; and Bates, Douglas Μ.. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 390–412.10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Dijkstra, Ton; and Schreuder, Robert. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald;Victor Kuperman; and Bertram, Raymond. 2010. Frequency effects in compound processing. Compounding, ed. by Scalise, Sergio and Vogel, Irene, 257–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano. 1987. Sociolinguistica dell'italiano contemporaneo. Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano. 1989. Main topics and findings in Italian sociolinguistics. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 76. 5–30.Google Scholar
Berruto, Gaetano. 2005. Dialect/standard convergence, mixing, and models of language contact: The case of Italy. Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European languages, ed. by Auer, Peter, Hinskens, Frans, and Kerswill, Paul, 81–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binazzi, Neri. 1996. Giovani uomini e giovani donne di fronte al lessico della tradizione: Risultati di un'analisi sul campo. Donna e linguaggio: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, ed. by Marcato, Gianna, 569–79. Padova: Cleup.Google Scholar
Brants, Thorsten, and Franz, Alex. 2009. Web 1T 5-gram, 10 European languages, version 1. Web 1T 5-gram, 10 European languages, version 1: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Britain, David. 2002. Space and spatial diffusion. In Chambers, et al., 603–37.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Castellani, Arrigo. 1982. Quanti erano gli italofoni nel 1861? Studi Linguistici Italiani 8. 3–26.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta j., and Sankoff, David. 1974. Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50. 333–55.10.2307/412441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerruti, Massimo. 2011. Regional varieties of Italian in the linguistic repertoire. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210. 9–28.Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack K., and Trudgill, Peter. 1998. Dialectology. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Jack k., Trudgill, Peter; and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.) 2002. The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2002. Sex and gender in variationist research. In Chambers et al., 42343.Google Scholar
Italiani, Comuni. 2011. Informazioni e dati statistici sui comuni in Italia, le province e le regioni italiane. Online: http://www.comuni-italiani.it.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1980. ‘Historische Sprache’ und ‘Dialekt’. Dialekt und Dialektologie, ed. by Göschel, Joachim, Ivic, Pavle, and Kehr, Kurt, 106–22. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Cravens, Thomas D., and Giannelli, Luciano. 1995. Relative salience of gender and class in a situation of multiple competing norms. Language Variation and Change 7. 261–85.10.1017/S0954394500001010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cucurullo, Nella, Montemagni, Simonetta, Paoli, Matilde, Picchi, Eugenio; and Sassolini, Eva. 2006. Dialectal resources on-line: The ALT-Web experience. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Genova, 1846–51.Google Scholar
Dal Negro, Silvia, and Vietti, Alessandro. 2011. Italian and Italo-Romance dialects. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210. 71–92.Google Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio. 1963. Storia linguistica dell’Italia unita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio. 2000. Grande dizionario italiano dell'uso. Torino: UTET.Google Scholar
Giacomelli, Gabriella. 1975. Dialettologia toscana. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 60. 179–91.Google Scholar
Giacomelli, Gabriella. 1978. Come e perchè il questionario. In Seminario di Dialettologia Italiana, 19–26.Google Scholar
Giacomelli, Gabriella, Agostiniani, Luciano, Bellucci, Patrizia, Giannelli, Luciano, Montemagni, Simonetta, Nesi, Annalisa, Paoli, Matilde, Picchi, Eugenio; and Salani, Teresa Poggi. 2000. Atlante lessicale Toscano. Roma: Lexis Progetti Editoriali.Google Scholar
Giacomelli, Gabriella, and Salani, Teresa Poggi. 1984. Paroletoscane. Quaderni dell ‘Atlante Lessicale Toscano 2. 123–229.Google Scholar
Giannelli, Luciano. 1978. L'indagine come ricerca delle diversità. In Seminario di Dialettologia Italiana, 35–50.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 1984. Dialektometrische Studien: Anhand italoromanischer, rätoromanischer und galloromanischer Sprachmaterialien aus AIS und ALF. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 2006. Recent advances in Salzburg dialectometry. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21. 411–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, Kyle. 2010. The consequences of multicollinearity among socioeconomic predictors of negative concord in Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 16. 2. 66–75.Google Scholar
Harrell, Frank. 2001. Regression modeling strategies. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian, Graff, Peter, Croft, William; and Pontillo, Daniel. 2011. Mixed effect models for genetic and areal dependencies in linguistic typology: Commentary on Atkinson. Linguistic Typology 15. 281–319.10.1515/lity.2011.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3. 359–83.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00108.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A. Jr., and Tamasi, Susan. 2003. Distributional foundations for a theory of language change. World Englishes 22. 377–401.10.1111/j.1467-971X.2003.00307.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kryuchkova, Tatiana, Tucker, Benjamin V., Wurm, Lee H.; and Baayen, R. Harald. 2012. Danger and usefulness in auditory lexical processing: Evidence from electroencephalography. Brain and Language 122. 81–91.10.1016/j.bandl.2012.05.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lepschy, Giulio. 2002. Mother tongues & other reflections on the Italian language. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442677401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2009. Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1995. A linguistic history of Italian. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin, and Parry, Mair. 1997. The dialects of Italy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Migliorini, Bruno, and Griffith, T. Gwynfor. 1984. The Italian language. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. 2002. Social networks. In Chambers, et al., 549–72.Google Scholar
Montemagni, Simonetta. 2008a. Analisi linguistico-computazionali del corpus dialettale dell’Atlante Lessicale Toscano: Primi risultati sul rapporto toscano-italiano. Discorsi di lingua e letteratura italiana per Teresa Poggi Salani, ed. by Nesi, Annalisa and Maraschio, Nicoletta, 247–60. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar
Montemagni, Simonetta. 2008b. The space of Tuscan dialectal variation: A correlation study. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 2. 135–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montemagni, Simonetta. 2010. Esplorazioni computazionali nello spazio della variazione lessicale in Toscana. Atti del Convegno Parole: Il lessico come strumento per organizzare e trasmettere gli etnosaperi, ed. by Pratera, Nadia, Mendicino, Antonio, and Citraro, Cinzia, 619–44. Rende: Centro Editoriale e Librario dell’Università della Calabria.Google Scholar
Montemagni, Simonetta, Wieling, Martijn, de Jonge, Bob; and Nerbonne, John. 2012. Patterns of language variation and underlying linguistic features: A new dialectometric approach. La variazione nell'italiano e nella sua storia: Varietà e varianti linguistiche e testuali: Atti dell’XI Congresso Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana, ed. by Bianchi, Patricia, De Blasi, Nicola, De Caprio, Chiara, and Montuori, Francesco, 879–89. Firenze: Franco Cesati Editore.Google Scholar
Montemagni, Simonetta, Wieling, Martijn, de Jonge, Bob; and Nerbonne, John. 2013. Synchronic patterns of Tuscan phonetic variation and diachronic change: Evidence from a dialectometric study. Literary and Linguistic Computing 28. 157–72.10.1093/llc/fqs057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerbonne, John. 2003. Linguistic variation and computation. Proceedings of the 10th meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Budapest, 3–10.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John. 2009. Data-driven dialectology. Language and Linguistics Compass 3. 175–98.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00114.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerbonne, John. 2010. Measuring the diffusion of linguistic change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365. 3821–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nerbonne, John, Heeringa, Wilbert, van, Erik Hout, den, van, Peter Kooi, de, Otten, Simone; and van, Willem Vis, de. 1996. Phonetic distance between Dutch dialects. Papers from the sixth CLIN Meeting, ed. by Durieux, Gert, Daelemans, Walter, and Gillis, Steven, 185–202. Antwerp: Centre for Dutch Language and Speech.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John, and Kleiweg, Peter. 2003. Lexical distance in LAMSAS. Computers and the Humanities 37. 339–57.10.1023/A:1025042402655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerbonne, John, and Kleiweg, Peter. 2007. Toward a dialectological yardstick. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 14. 148–67.10.1080/09296170701379260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, Mark, Atkinson, Quentin D.; and Meade, Andrew. 2007. Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 449. 71720.10.1038/nature06176CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poggi Salani, Teresa. 1978. Dialetto e lingua a confronto. In Seminario di Dialettologia Italiana, 51–65.Google Scholar
SÉguy, Jean. 1973. La dialectométrie dans l'atlas linguistique de Gascogne. Revue de Linguistique Romane 37. 1–24.Google Scholar
di, Seminario Italiana, Dialettologia. 1978. Atlante lessicale toscano—Note sul questionario. Firenze: Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali a., and Baayen, R. Harald. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24. 135–78.10.1017/S0954394512000129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valls, Esteve, Wieling, Martijn; and Nerbonne, John. 2013. Linguistic advergence and divergence in northwestern Catalan: A dialectometric investigation of dialect leveling and border effects. Literary and Linguistic Computing 28. 119–46.10.1093/llc/fqs052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieling, Martijn. 2012. A quantitative approach to social and geographical dialect variation. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Wieling, Martijn, and Nerbonne, John. 2010. Hierarchical spectral partitioning of bipartite graphs to cluster dialects and identify distinguishing features. Proceedings of the 2010 ACL Workshop on Graph-based Methods for Natural Language Processing, Uppsala, 33–41.Google Scholar
Wieling, Martijn, and Nerbonne, John. 2011. Bipartite spectral graph partitioning for clustering dialect varieties and detecting their linguistic features. Computer Speech and Language 25. 700–715.10.1016/j.csl.2010.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieling, Martijn, Nerbonne, John; and Baayen, R. Harald. 2011. Quantitative social dialectology: Explaining linguistic variation socially and geographically. PLoS ONE 6. 9.e23613. Online: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023613.10.1371/journal.pone.0023613CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wieling, Martijn, Shackleton, Robert G. Jr.; and Nerbonne, John. 2013. Analyzing phonetic variation in the traditional English dialects: Simultaneously clustering dialects and phonetic features. Literary and Linguistic Computing 28. 31–41.10.1093/llc/fqs047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieling, Martijn, Upton, Clive; and Thompson, Ann. 2014. Analyzing the BBC Voices data: Contemporary English dialect areas and their characteristic lexical variants. Literary and Linguistic Computing 29. 107–17.10.1093/llc/fqt009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Simon. 2003. Thin plate regression splines. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 65. 95–114.10.1111/1467-9868.00374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Simon. 2006. Generalized additive models: An introduction with R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.10.1201/9781420010404CrossRefGoogle Scholar