Freiburg English Dialect Corpus

A Corpus is an accumulation of writings utilized for etymological investigations, normally kept in an electronic database so that the information can be accessed effectively with the help of a computer. For my case, I chose the Freiburg English Dialect Corpus. This corpus is a compilation made by a great team of research members and is always under the supervision of Bernd Kortmann, a professor at the Freiburg University. The key objective of the system is to provide a reasonable database that intends to strengthen research and studies in the British Isles. I chose this corpus because of the Morpho-syntactic variation that exists in the British Isles. Additionally, the most important reason was the focus of interest to the English dialects in a narrowed fashion and therefore also Celtic languages get considered. The software is essential for this analysis and for my selected portion the questioning is accomplished by the software Concordancers (Newman, Baayen & Rice, n.d.). Is the word common to all English dialects? Another question that comes to mind when using this analysis is what is most important about geographical dialect. These questions will determine why you choose to apply one method of analysis over another. The lines of research show that this method reveals a wide variety of the nonstandard constructions and their usage conditions (Auer, Schmidt, Lameli, Kehrein & Rabanus, 2010)

If this sample essay on"Freiburg English Dialect Corpus" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Trust an expert

AntConc Concordance Tool

This tool is best for analysis of texts. It shows a word or a group of words that you wish to analyze. Once you start the program you should be in a position to select the files you want to analyze. On the screen, the tab concordance appears, and I chose it. Finally, you should type your search word at the bottom left-hand corner. Describe how your questions of interest guided you to choosing certain methods for analyzing your corpus selection. The other method of analysis is wordsmith Concord. On the screen, I clicked on the wordsmith icon to open the program. I went ahead and selected on the Concord so as to have access to the signing in of my word or phrase. For my case, I chose the word based on the Geographical location.

For my case, I chose words that are of German origin and those from the Italian origin. A word for example make has several wildcard or variations. Just by typing in ma*all, the words forms that begin with the letters appear and I could see, mankind, marry, mayor, man. When you type in 'ma?' A different list of words appears. On the screen, I had the following words: made, make, maze, mate, and male. Several forms can be used in findings. Other available wildcards are @ which stands for 0 or 1 word, | stands for or

Different results are gotten by this method, and each has a particular meaning. For example, the use of an asterisk means that the scope of the search is wide enough. An example is the words from our result where we typed ma* and had a wider range of results. Typing goes *, for example, will give a whole list of words beginning with a go-, they include gold, going, gotten, golf and such.

The results obtained have several meanings. The meanings are given by the geographical location. For example, prepositional phrases such as those beginning with it imply that they are of Italian origin. On the hypothesis I draw, it stated that the words are analyzed based on their dialects. This is not actually true, and I would say it is not the only dialect as we have many dialects in todays world. The objective of this analysis which is to determine the patterns and the limits of variation within the different dialects of different languages are met ("Metadata Freiburg Corpus of English Dialects Sampler (FRED-S) 2016). I was surprised by the results, and I can now focus on the different types of corpus that exist for other discoveries.

In conclusion, we have the different types of toolkit analysis for the languages, and we have to appreciate each. They are an example of branches, and each represents the different dialects. This also challenges us to embrace our brotherhood. The results obtained give us a wider perspective of the objective of the technique. It focuses on the morphology and syntax of the different languages. The results obtained are broad in aspect and is the best way to integrate the languages and variations that can be observed across the world.

Freiburg English Dialect Corpus

When, after almost two years of preliminary research, the actual compilation of FRED started in March 2000, the Freiburg team had had enough time to think about, discuss, consider possible and dismiss impossible research questions and devise a list of objectives for which the finished corpus should be suitable.1 The research tradition of other Freiburg corpora (for F-LOB and Frown, see, for example, Mair, 2002; Mair et al., 2002) provided two clear objectives. First, the corpus should permit the investigation of phenomena of non-standard morpho syntax (rather than analyses of phonetic or phonological details). Features of syntax are (almost by definition) much rarer than features of phonetics and phonology and very large quantities of text are therefore necessary. (Some estimates are that about 40 times the amount of text is needed for a syntactic analysis as opposed to a phonetic one.)

This considerably restricted the practicality of collecting our own corpus ab initio. Instead, we decided to try to compile a corpus from materials that were already available. We decided against collecting material with the help of questionnaires in the first phase of the project (but see Barbiers et al., this volume). Questionnaires were, however, designed and distributed in the second phaseof the project when, on the base of extensive corpus analyses, interesting, transitional or rare phenomena became apparent that could not be further investigated with the help of FRED alone. Second, we decided to collect material that would best be classified as traditional dialect data (for a diametrically opposed aim see the ICEproject, for example Kallen and Kirk, this volume). This means that we explicitly tried to find material from speakers who grew up before the CDLC1_03 (35-53).

Second World War, as this date seems to be the major cataclysmic event after which wide-ranging social and economic changes (with concomitant linguistic changes) came into effect. For example, highly increased mobility after the Second World War led to dialect-leveling a hitherto unknown scale (see for example Williams and Kerswill, 1999, p. 149); mass affluence resulted, amongst other things, in television sets becoming easily available and spreading at least passive knowledge of the standard language; increased public spending made sure that education changed not only qualitatively but also quantitatively, such that children leaving school at 11 or 12 (not unusual for lower class children only 60 or 70 years ago) is no longer possible, and so on. Only by concentrating on speakers born before the Second World War could we at least have a chance that our data would still be dialectal in a regional sense, and be comparable to older dialect descriptions and dialect data (on the background of speaker selection for the Survey of English Dialects, see Orton, 1962, p. 14).

There are a number of other arguments and preliminary considerations contributing to this decision: we had established contact with various researchers, research groups and private individuals who were either in possession of similar materials or were already working with such data, and who had kindly offered us access to them. Moreover, the only existing sources on variation in morpho syntax are based on traditional material, most importantly the Survey of English Dialects (Orton and Halliday, 196264; Orton and Dieth, 196271; Orton and Wakelin, 196768; Orton and Barry, 196971; Orton and Tilling, 196971). To guarantee comparability between these materials, it was essential that Fred should also consist of traditional dialect material without having to take factors like mobility or the influence of mass media into account.