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

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.