Acceso usuarios
[1]
;
Cornips, Leonie
[2]
;
Vangsnes, Øystein A.
[3]
Países Bajos
Países Bajos
Noruega
Aims and objectives: This study explores the variations in dialect proficiency among bidialectal children in the Dutch province of Limburg, situated in the southeast of the Netherlands. The primary objective is to uncover the sources of individual differences in dialect proficiency within a dialect-standard continuum. Methodology: The study employs a cross-sectional design to assess dialect proficiency through a picture naming task conducted in the local dialect. Key individual difference factors considered include age, gender, socioeconomic status (SES), dialect use at home, dialect use with peers, and vocabulary size in the standard language (Dutch). Dutch vocabulary was measured using a standardized test, while other individual difference factors were gathered via a parental questionnaire. Data and analysis: A total of 128 children, aged 4 to 9 years ( M = 81 months; SD = 12 months), participated in the study. Responses on the picture naming task were converted into a score representing the difference between a child’s response and the dialect form. A smaller difference indicated closer proximity and thus higher dialect proficiency. Mixed-effects linear regression modelling was used to analyse the data. Findings: Older children, those who frequently used dialect in peer interactions, and children with larger vocabularies in standard Dutch tended to use forms closer to the dialect. Gender, SES, and dialect use at home were not significant predictors of dialect proficiency, possibly due to the specific context of Limburg and the age range of the participants. Originality: While picture naming is commonly used to measure children’s expressive vocabulary and word retrieval – indices of language proficiency – its use in a context characterized by a dialect-standard continuum without an official norm is novel. Implications: Picture naming tasks can be valuable in developmental sociolinguistics and dialect acquisition research. However, they should not be used as a stand-alone measure.
