Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

J. MARSHALL There is no significant interaction between AGE and SEX. Next we add LIFMOD: SSSCOR = - 0.0034 + 0.00352 AGE - 0.221 SEX + 0.00367 AGE x SEX + 0.0214 LIFMOD Predictor Coef StDev T P Constant -0.00336 0.08096 -0.04 0.967 AGE 0.003516 0.001710 2.06 0.044 SEX -0.22051 0.08494 -2.60 0.012 AGE x SE 0.003668 0.002177 1.69 0.097 LIFMOD 0.021404 0.003331 6.43 0.000 S = 0.1886 R-Sq = 70.3% R-Sq(adj) = 68.3% The p-value for LIFMOD is very highly significant. The r-squared value has jumped by over 20%, showing that the addition of LIFMOD has greatly improved the model. The speaker’s degree of mental urbanisation is again a reliable predictor of language maintenance. 7.5. LIFMOD as a Predictor of LEXREC LEXREC is an index score achieved by testing the speaker’s knowledge of fifty lexical items. As mentioned, this score is regarded with caution, as passive recognition of a word does not imply active daily use. The results of the analysis, however, show that LEXREC is highly correlated with the other two linguistic scores, and therefore may be an accurate measurement of dialect use. LEXREC = 26.7 + 0.353 AGE Predictor Coef StDev T P Constant 26.694 1.487 17.95 0.000 AGE 0.35316 0.03820 9.25 0.000 S = 6.621 R-Sq = 58.4% R-Sq(adj) = 57.7% The p-value for AGE is highly significant and the r-squared value is quite high. AGE again proves to be a reliable predictor of dialect use. Next we add the variable SEX. LEXREC = 26.7 + 0.353 AGE - 0.11 SEX Predictor Coef StDev T P 168
SOCIAL NETWORKS IN A RURAL SETTING Constant 26.748 1.708 15.66 0.000 AGE 0.35324 0.03853 9.17 0.000 SEX1 -0.110 1.683 -0.07 0.948 S = 6.676 R-Sq = 58.4% R-Sq(adj) = 57.0% The p-value for SEX is not significant at all, and the r-squared value has actually dropped slightly. There is no significant difference between the males and females in terms of lexical use. Next we add the variable AGE x SEX. LEXREC = 26.9 + 0.349 AGE - 0.38 SEX + 0.0083 AGE x SEX Predictor Coef StDev T P Constant 26.879 2.117 12.69 0.000 AGE 0.34908 0.05504 6.34 0.000 SEX -0.377 3.025 -0.12 0.901 AGE x SEX 0.00828 0.07771 0.11 0.916 S = 6.731 R-Sq = 58.4% R-Sq(adj) = 56.2% The p-value for AGE x SEX is not significant, and the r-squared value has again dropped slightly. There is no significant interaction between AGE and SEX. Next we add LIFMOD: LEXREC = 19.0 + 0.244 AGE + 0.43 SEX + 0.0076 AGE x SEX + 0.475 LIFMOD Predictor Coef StDev T P Constant 19.020 2.489 7.64 0.000 AGE 0.24372 0.05257 4.64 0.000 SEX 0.426 2.612 0.16 0.871 AGE x SEX 0.00765 0.06694 0.11 0.909 LIFMOD 0.4750 0.1024 4.64 0.000 S = 5.798 R-Sq = 69.6% R-Sq(adj) = 67.5% The p-value for sex is still not significant, whereas that for LIFMOD is highly so. The r-squared value for the model has risen by over 11%, showing that LIFMOD has improved it significantly. LIFMOD has again proved to be a reliable predictor of dialect maintenance, even after the effects of age and sex have been statistically removed. We can now confidently say that, ignoring age and sex, those speakers with a low degree of mental urbanisation have maintained their rural dialect more than those with a high degree of mental urbanisation. Next, we build a model for SOCNET. The output for the model above will be used up to the point where AGE x SEX is added, with SOCNET being finally added as the predictor variable: 169
Page 1 and 2:
Reading Working Papers in Linguisti
Page 3:
Reading Working Papers in Linguisti
Page 6 and 7:
K ALJENAIE testing ground. To what
Page 8 and 9:
K ALJENAIE causative form is basica
Page 10 and 11:
K ALJENAIE person diagram, the two
Page 12 and 13:
K ALJENAIE 3.2 Data Analysis The sa
Page 14 and 15:
K ALJENAIE Table 4 Osama’s longit
Page 16 and 17:
K ALJENAIE The asterisk indicates t
Page 18 and 19:
K ALJENAIE which is the transitive
Page 20 and 21:
K ALJENAIE confirming Hyams (1986)
Page 22 and 23:
K ALJENAIE Table 12 Sara’s realiz
Page 24 and 25:
K ALJENAIE Table 15 Number of Infle
Page 26 and 27:
K ALJENAIE masculine forms are cons
Page 28 and 29:
K ALJENAIE Motar, A. (1969). Khasai
Page 30 and 31:
P. COUTSOUGERA Plural Plural Singul
Page 32 and 33:
P. COUTSOUGERA e.g. [peδja'] *[pe
Page 34 and 35:
P. COUTSOUGERA Tableau 1: Opacity i
Page 36 and 37:
P. COUTSOUGERA As can be seen, in r
Page 38 and 39:
P. COUTSOUGERA 6.1 Selection of the
Page 40 and 41:
P. COUTSOUGERA /alevr-I-a/ Tableau
Page 42 and 43:
P. COUTSOUGERA different areas of t
Page 44 and 45:
P. COUTSOUGERA ruled out as it viol
Page 46 and 47:
P. COUTSOUGERA operation McCarthy p
Page 48 and 49:
P. COUTSOUGERA Tableau 6: Applicati
Page 50 and 51:
P. COUTSOUGERA References Anderson,
Page 52 and 53:
R. INGHAM cognitive deficits. They
Page 54 and 55:
R. INGHAM 2. Subjects and hypothese
Page 56 and 57:
R. INGHAM good as their CA matches
Page 58 and 59:
R. INGHAM 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
Page 60 and 61:
R. INGHAM Did the [+LD] group perfo
Page 62 and 63:
R. INGHAM using the Wilcoxon ranked
Page 64 and 65:
R. INGHAM representations but also
Page 66 and 67:
R. INGHAM Van der Lely, H., & L. St
Page 68 and 69:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS some vene
Page 70 and 71:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS far soone
Page 72 and 73:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS outside l
Page 74 and 75:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS 3. Intern
Page 76 and 77:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS • Varia
Page 78 and 79:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Despite s
Page 80 and 81:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS naturalne
Page 82 and 83:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS apparent
Page 84 and 85:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Summary f
Page 86 and 87:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Table 2 T
Page 88 and 89:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS regard it
Page 90 and 91:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS The ‘gr
Page 92 and 93:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Table 4 (
Page 94 and 95:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS sociodemo
Page 96 and 97:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS Bardovi-H
Page 98 and 99:
P. KERSWILL & A. WILLIAMS språkfö
Page 100 and 101:
S. KULKARNI in the Indian caste hie
Page 102 and 103:
S. KULKARNI ideologies, each emphas
Page 104 and 105:
S. KULKARNI century. The Sabha was,
Page 106 and 107:
S. KULKARNI The main study includes
Page 108 and 109:
S. KULKARNI 4. Quantitative Analyse
Page 110 and 111:
S. KULKARNI comparatively lower (in
Page 112 and 113:
S. KULKARNI Table 3: Percentage use
Page 114 and 115:
S. KULKARNI showing an almost compl
Page 116 and 117:
S. KULKARNI 50 mean % std. score 40
Page 118 and 119:
S. KULKARNI 100 mean % std. score 9
Page 120 and 121:
S. KULKARNI Marathi the kin term /m
Page 122 and 123: S. KULKARNI not by the less-privile
Page 124 and 125: S. KULKARNI Bapuji, B.R. (1994).
Page 126 and 127: S. KULKARNI Sastry, J.V. (1993). Re
Page 128 and 129: J. MARSHALL 2. Change versus Resist
Page 130 and 131: J. MARSHALL have become more expose
Page 132 and 133: J. MARSHALL anthropologists. As man
Page 134 and 135: J. MARSHALL for data such as Milroy
Page 136 and 137: J. MARSHALL To some extent, [networ
Page 138 and 139: J. MARSHALL these close-knit ties a
Page 140 and 141: J. MARSHALL Life mode 1. Life modes
Page 142 and 143: J. MARSHALL There are, however, som
Page 144 and 145: J. MARSHALL can choose a high level
Page 146 and 147: J. MARSHALL Pedersen therefore, lik
Page 148 and 149: J. MARSHALL case that these people
Page 150 and 151: J. MARSHALL 6. Research Question an
Page 152 and 153: J. MARSHALL ‘are high in frequenc
Page 154 and 155: J. MARSHALL 6.5. Morphological Vari
Page 156 and 157: J. MARSHALL 4 Do you work/go to sch
Page 158 and 159: J. MARSHALL 8) I never eat brose or
Page 160 and 161: J. MARSHALL mentioned, a ‘real ti
Page 162 and 163: J. MARSHALL 3. LEXREC. This is an i
Page 164 and 165: J. MARSHALL which comes nearest to
Page 166 and 167: J. MARSHALL LIFMODLEXREC 60 50 40 L
Page 168 and 169: J. MARSHALL the different tests wer
Page 170 and 171: J. MARSHALL PHOVAR = 21.1 + 0.573 A
Page 174 and 175: J. MARSHALL 7.6. SOCNET as a Predic
Page 176 and 177: J. MARSHALL SOCNET is again not sig
Page 178 and 179: J. MARSHALL integrated sociolinguis
Page 180 and 181: I. SINKA, M. GARMAN AND C. SCHELLET
show all

Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?