Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Divjak, Dagmar

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.902
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.297

CiteScore 2018: 2.09

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.075
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 2.063

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 30, Issue 1


Concept characteristics and variation in lexical diversity in two Dutch dialect areas

Karlien FrancoORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6499-265X / Dirk Geeraerts / Dirk Speelman / Roeland Van Hout
Published Online: 2019-01-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0136


Lexical diversity, the amount of lexical variation shown by a particular concept, varies between concepts. For the concept drunk, for instance, nearly 3000 English expressions exist, including blitzed, intoxicated, and hammered. For the concept sober, however, a significantly smaller number of lexical items is available, like sober or abstinent. While earlier variation studies have revealed that meaning-related concept characteristics correlate with the amount of lexical variation, these studies were limited in scope, being restricted to one semantic field and to one dialect area, that of the Limburgish dialects of Dutch. In this paper, we investigate whether the impact of concept characteristics, viz. vagueness, lack of salience and proneness to affect, is manifest in a similar way in other dialects and other semantic fields. In particular, by extending the scope of the earlier studies to other carefully selected semantic fields, we investigate the generalizability of the impact of concept characteristics to the lexicon as a whole. The quantitative approach that we employ to measure concept characteristics and lexical diversity methodologically advances the study of linguistic variation. Theoretically, this paper contributes to the further development of Cognitive Sociolinguistics by showcasing how meaning can be a source of lexical diversity.

Keywords: lexical diversity; lexical variation; dialectology; cognitive sociolinguistics; Dutch


  • Allan, Keith & Kate Burridge. 1988. Euphemism, dysphemism, and cross-varietal synonymy. La Trobe Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 1–16.Google Scholar

  • Allan, Keith & Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Berlin, Brent. 1978. Ethnobiological classification. In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 9–26. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Berlin, Brent, Dennis E. Breedlove & Peter H. Raven. 1973. General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist 75(1). 214–242.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brysbaert, Marc, Paweł Mandera, Samantha McCormick & Emmanuel Keuleers. 2018. Word prevalence norms for 62,000 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods 1–13.Google Scholar

  • Brysbaert, Marc, Michaël Stevens, Simon De Deyne, Wouter Voorspoels & Gert Storms. 2014. Norms of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30,000 Dutch words. Acta Psychologica 150. 80–84.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cornips, Leonie, Jos Swanenberg, Wilbert Heeringa & Folkert De Vriend. 2016. The relationship between first language acquisition and dialect variation: Linking resources from distinct disciplines in a CLARIN-NL project. Lingua 178. 32–45.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Vyvyan Evans & Stéphanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 395–420. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Dąbrowska, Ewa & Dagmar Divjak. 2015. Introduction. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39), 1–9. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Daems, Jocelyne, Kris Heylen & Dirk Geeraerts. 2015. Wat dragen we vandaag: Een hemd met blazer of een shirt met jasje? Convergentie en divergentie binnen Nederlandse kledingtermen [What to wear today: A shirt with a blazer or a shirt with a jacket? Convergence and divergence in Dutch clothing terminology]. Taal En Tongval: Variation in the Low Countries 67(2). 307–342.Google Scholar

  • Franco, Karlien & Dirk Geeraerts. Forthcoming. Botany meets lexicology: The relationship between experiential salience and lexical diversity. In Janice Fon (ed.), Dimensions of diffusion and diversity (Cognitive Linguistics Research 63), 113–146. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 1993. Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4(3). 223–272.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 2005. Lectal variation and empirical data in Cognitive Linguistics. In Sandra Peña Cervel & Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Cognitive linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interactions (Cognitive Linguistics Research 32), 163–189. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 2015. Sense individuation. In Nick Riemer (ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics, 233–247. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 2017. Entrenchment as onomasiological salience. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (Language and the Human Lifespan 3), 153–174. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Peter Bakema. 1994. The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context (Cognitive Linguistics Research 5). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Dirk Speelman. 1999. Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat: Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen [Convergence and divergence in the Dutch lexicon: A study on clothing and soccer terminology]. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.). 2010. Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (Cognitive Linguistics Research 45). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk & Dirk Speelman. 2010. Heterodox concept features and onomasiological heterogeneity in dialects. In Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (Cognitive Linguistics Research 45), 23–39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Gorman, Aloysia M. 1961. Recognition memory for nouns as a function of abstractness and frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology 61(1). 23–29.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. Polysemy. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39), 472–490. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Grieve, Jack, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2011. A statistical method for the identification and aggregation of regional linguistic variation. Language Variation and Change 23(2). 193–221.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hallgren, Kevin A. 2012. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 8(1). 23–34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harder, Peter. 2003. The status of linguistic facts: Rethinking the relation between cognition, social institution and utterance from a functional point of view. Mind & Language 18(1). 52–76.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hargis, Charles H. & Edward E. Gickling. 1978. The function of imagery in word recognition development. The Reading Teacher 31(8). 870–874.Google Scholar

  • Heylen, Kris & Tom Ruette. 2013. Degrees of semantic control in measuring aggregated lexical distances. In Lars Borin & Anju Saxena (eds.), Approaches to measuring linguistic differences (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 265), 353–374. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Kemmer, Suzanne & Michael Barlow. 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, vii – xxviii. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Keuleers, Emmanuel, Michaël Stevens, Paweł Mandera & Marc Brysbaert. 2015. Word knowledge in the crowd: Measuring vocabulary size and word prevalence in a massive online experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 68(8). 1–62.Google Scholar

  • Kristiansen, Gitte & René Dirven (eds.). 2008. Cognitive Sociolinguistics (Cognitive Linguistics Research 39). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Labov, William. 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Charles-James N. Bailey & Roger W. Shuy (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English, 340–371. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2007. Polysemy, prototypes and radial categories. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 139–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lillo, Antonio. 2009. Drunk: The definitive drinker’s dictionary. International Journal of Lexicography 23(2). 242–245.Google Scholar

  • Majid, Asifa & Niclas Burenhult. 2014. Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition 130(2). 266–270.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Milroy, Lesley. 2002. Introduction: Mobility, contact and language change. Working with contemporary speech communities. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6(1). 3–15.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Moors, Agnes, Jan De Houwer, Dirk Hermans, Sabina Wanmaker, Kevin Van Schie, Anne-Laura Van Harmelen, Maarten De Schryver, Jeffrey De Winne & Marc Brysbaert. 2013. Norms of valence, arousal, dominance, and age of acquisition for 4300 Dutch words. Behavior Research Methods 45(1). 169–177.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Paivio, Allan. 1986. Mental representations: A dual coding approach (Oxford Psychology Series 9). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pickl, Simon. 2013. Lexical meaning and spatial distribution. Evidence from geostatistical dialectometry. Literary and Linguistic Computing 28(1). 63–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pütz, Martin, Justyna A. Robinson & Monika Reif (eds.). 2014. Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Social and Cultural Variation in Cognition and Language Use (Benjamins Current Topics 59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2016. Why Cognitive Linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 543–557.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sinha, Chris & Kristine Jensen de López. 2001. Language, culture and the embodiment of spatial cognition. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1–2). 17–41.Google Scholar

  • Soares Da Silva, Augusto. 2010. Measuring and parameterizing lexical convergence and divergence between European and Brazilian Portuguese. In Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (Cognitive Linguistics Research 45), 41–83. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Speelman, Dirk & Dirk Geeraerts. 2007. De structuur van lexicale onzekerheid [The structure of lexical insecurity]. Taal & Tongval 20. 47–61.Google Scholar

  • Speelman, Dirk & Dirk Geeraerts. 2008. The role of concept characteristics in lexical dialectometry. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 2(1–2). 221–242.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Speelman, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Dirk Geeraerts. 2003. Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Computers and the Humanities 37(3). 317–337.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Swadesh, Morris. 1955. Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating. International Journal of American Linguistics 21(2). 121–137.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Swanenberg, Jos. 2000. Lexicale variatie cognitief-semantisch benaderd: Over het benoemen van vogels in Zuid-Nederlandse dialecten [Lexical variation from a cognitive-semantic perspective: On naming birds in the Southern Dutch dialects]. Nijmegen: Radboud University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Swanenberg, Jos. 2004. Kolbloemen, bloedpaters en manebladen versus zoetelief en luitentuit. Bronnen van lexicale variatie in de Brabantse flora en fauna [‘kolbloemen’, ‘bloedpaters’ and ‘manebladen’ versus ‘zoetelief’ and ‘luitentuit’. Sources of lexical variation in the Brabantic flora and fauna]. Taal & Tongval 56. 19–47.Google Scholar

  • Swanenberg, Jos. 2010. Als het beestje maar een naam heeft [As long as the animal has a name]. In Johan Rooryck, Jeroen Van Craenenbroeck, Guido Vanden Wyngaerd, Johan De Caluwe & Jacques Van Keymeulen (eds.), Voor Magda: Artikelen voor Magda Devos bij haar afscheid van de Universiteit Gent, 561–568. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar

  • Szelid, Veronika & Dirk Geeraerts. 2008. Usage-based dialectology. Emotion concepts in the Southern Csango dialect. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6(1). 23–49.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages: Findings and results. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages, 55–75. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Social structure, language contact and language change. In Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone & Paul Kerswill (eds.), The SAGE handbook of sociolinguistics, 236–248. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

  • WBD. 1967–2005. Woordenboek van de Brabantse dialecten [dictionary of the Brabantic dialects]. Assen: Van Gorcum / Amsterdam: Gopher.Google Scholar

  • Weijnen, Antonius A. 1966. Nederlandse Dialectkunde [Dutch dialectology] (Studia Theodisca 10). Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar

  • Wieling, Martijn, Clive Upton & Ann Thompson. 2014. Analyzing the BBC voices data: Contemporary English dialect areas and their characteristic lexical variants. Literary and Linguistic Computing 29(1). 107–117.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • WLD. 1983–2008. Woordenboek van de Limburgse dialecten [dictionary of the Limburgish dialects]. Assen: Van Gorcum / Amsterdam: Gopher.Google Scholar

  • Zenner, Eline, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2012. Cognitive Sociolinguistics meets loanword research: Measuring variation in the success of anglicisms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics 23(4). 749–792.Google Scholar

  • Zuur, Alain F, Elena N. Ieno, Neil J. Walker, Anatoly A. Saveliev & Graham M. Smith. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R (Statistics for Biology and Health). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-12-10

Accepted: 2018-09-07

Revised: 2018-08-27

Published Online: 2019-01-12

Published in Print: 2019-02-25

Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 205–242, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0136.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in