↓ Skip to main content

Seeking Systematicity in Variation: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations on the “Variety” Concept

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Seeking Systematicity in Variation: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations on the “Variety” Concept
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00385
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Sophie Ghyselen, Gunther De Vogelaer

Abstract

One centennial discussion in linguistics concerns whether languages, or linguistic systems, are, essentially, homogeneous or rather show "structured heterogeneity." In this contribution, the question is addressed whether and how sociolinguistically defined systems (or 'varieties') are to be distinguished in a heterogeneous linguistic landscape: to what extent can structure be found in the myriads of language variants heard in everyday language use? We first elaborate on the theoretical importance of this 'variety question' by relating it to current approaches from, among others, generative linguistics (competing grammars), sociolinguistics (style-shifting, polylanguaging), and cognitive linguistics (prototype theory). Possible criteria for defining and detecting varieties are introduced, which are subsequently tested empirically, using a self-compiled corpus of spoken Dutch in West Flanders (Belgium). This empirical study demonstrates that the speech repertoire of the studied West Flemish speakers consists of four varieties, viz. a fairly stable dialect variety, a more or less virtual standard Dutch variety, and two intermediate varieties, which we will label 'cleaned-up dialect' and 'substandard.' On the methodological level, this case-study underscores the importance of speech corpora comprising both inter- and intra-speaker variation on the one hand, and the merits of triangulating qualitative and quantitative approaches on the other.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 9 53%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 5 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2019.
All research outputs
#17,933,348
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,768
of 30,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,059
of 330,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#483
of 570 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 570 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.