We Speak Unique: Folk Linguistic Perceptions and Attitudes of Dialect in Japan
Patrick Maher
Ohio University
2
INTRODUCTION
This study in perceptual dialectology seeks to compare and contrast folk linguistic
perceptions and attitudes of dialect in Japan between two distinct populations. Perceptions of
both regional and national dialect boundaries, along with attitudes regarding standard Japanese
and personal dialect, will be measured via quantitative and qualitative tasks together with followup focus group interviews. Methodologies have been adapted from those utilized by
dialectologists both in the U.S. and abroad (Preston 1988, Long 1999, Benson 2003) and serve
the additional function of developing and guiding focus group interview themes and questioning
(Dornyei 2007).
The breadth of this study aims at investigating and visually mapping both consensus and
individual opinions regarding language variation. Drawing subjects from a centrally-located,
urban prefecture (Aichi) and a more secluded, rural prefecture in southern Japan (Miyazaki)
serves as a key variable in examining the potential effects that distance from Japan’s highlycentralized capital can have on perceptions and attitudes towards language.
KEY TERMS
Perceptual Dialectology: The branch of dialectology concerned with measuring and
understanding non-linguists’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs regarding language variation.
Folk Linguistic: Pertaining to lay person perceptions and beliefs about language.
3
Perceptual Mapping: Creating a visual representation (map) of folk linguistic perceptions which
showcases where non-linguists perceive similarities and differences in language.
Production Data-Based Dialectology: The study of dialect which involves the collection and
analysis of language samples in demarcating dialect boundaries.
Prefecture: Sub-national administrative divisions within Japan – similar to states in the United
States. Japan has a total of 47 prefectures.
AIMS & JUSTIFICATION
Dialect mapping has traditionally involved the collection of production data in
demarcating dialectal boundaries (Benson, 2003); however, mapping based exclusively on the
geographic distribution of linguistic forms excludes important sociological aspects in the study
of dialect – specifically, individual perceptions and attitudes. Dialects represent more than mere
variations of language, further containing an emotional aspect, which demands complementary
study of dialect as a social phenomenon (Inoue, 1995). Propelling the inclusion of a
sociolinguistic eye on dialectal research, Dennis Preston’s (1988) advancement of methodology
in the field of perceptual dialectology led to an international increase in the study of folk
perceptions and attitudes of dialect, with researchers borrowing and further refining his
techniques.
4
Japan, with a rich history of perceptual dialectology studies at both the national and
regional levels (Long 1999; Long 1997; Inoue 1996; Inoue 1995; Iwamoto 1983; Mase 1964),
similarly continues to include the voice of non-linguists into mapping dialect. However,
opinions regarding the accuracy of folk perceptions in comparison to production data differ
historically, and more and more researchers are calling for an examination of individual “dialect
identities” (Long 1999; Inoue 1996; Inoue 1995) to further understand variation in non-linguistic
perceptions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
As this study will attempt to adapt and build upon previously utilized findings and
methodologies in painting a picture of dialect perceptions, attitudes, and identities within Japan, I
will first introduce findings from studies of Japanese dialectal perceptions conducted on a
national scale, followed by studies conducted at the regional level in both Japan and the United
States. Finally, I will give a brief look into present-day dialect mappings of Miyazaki and Aichi
Prefecture, as well as how their dialects are perceived throughout Japan, as these areas are home
to my subjects.
Perceptual Dialect Studies at the National Level
Inoue (1995) cites the existence of a dialect inferiority complex and
impersonal/institutional bilingualism within Japan as two of several reasons for the necessity of
5
perceptual dialectology studies, even within monolingual countries. Such social factors
demonstrate that the “emotional aspect” of dialect deserves more attention, and thus, Inoue’s
research focused on producing a dialect map of Japan demarcated along the lines of nonlinguists’ attitudes of intellectual and emotional images of dialects. The data demonstrated that
distance from the perceived center of standard language, as well as the social prestige attached to
a dialect by speakers of that dialect influenced one’s images of dialects. Overall, urban dialects
(e.g. Aichi Prefecture) were held in higher esteem, with the dialects of many rural areas
garnering a more negative emotional response (with Miyazaki Prefecture amongst the most
negatively perceived).
Inoue found similar results in perceptually mapping Great Britain, with findings
demonstrating that both linguistic form of dialect and emotional response to accent play a part in
folk linguists’ subjective dividing of dialect (1996). Inoue argues that phonetic characteristics of
dialect prove more influential than phonological characteristics in swaying personal perceptions,
evidencing the strength of the emotional response dialect can produce. In other words, while
folk linguistics form mental maps of dialect variation partially from recognizing phonological
differences, it is the emotional reaction to how such speech is produced that plays the greater role
in mentally separating speech varieties.
6
His brief discussion of the history of perceptual dialectology studies within Japan points
to a conflicting trend in findings: while some have found that subjective dialect divisions are
strongly influenced by traditional administrative demarcations (Sibata, 1959), others counter
with results demonstrating a strong correlation between perceptions of dialectal boundaries and
production-based boundaries (Mase, 1964). Thus, in order to better understand the factors at
play in perceptual separation of dialectal areas, Inoue calls for studies of a wider perspective
focusing on individual dialectal images.
Shifting from perceptions of dialect in general to a more precise theme, Long (1997)
specifically focused on perceptions of where “standard Japanese” is spoken. In conducting his
study with subjects from eight regions across Japan, Long found that while the majority of
Japanese people simultaneously refer to language spoken in Tokyo as both the “Tokyo Dialect”
and “Hyoujungo” (Standard Language), respondents surprisingly indentified varying locations as
the hub of standard Japanese. Long summarizes his findings by asserting the need to not only
further indentify “where” speakers perceive standard Japanese to be spoken, but “what” speakers
perceive as standard Japanese.
Long extended the breadth of his focus in two subsequent studies (1999a&b). The first
study involved measuring Japanese perceptions of dialect boundaries and having subjects name
these boundaries, while the second built upon the previous findings by extending his
7
measurements to include Japanese attitudes regarding dialect “pleasantness,” which also
involved amassing respondent descriptions of dialect characteristics. Findings of boundary
demarcation mirrored the conflict referenced by Inoue (1996), with some regions more apt to
separate differences in dialect along administrative borders, while other regions showed a
tendency to do the opposite, making detailed demarcations in line with production-based data,
especially closer to home. Interestingly, although the majority of respondents included their
home dialect among the “pleasant dialects” (with consensus national results corresponding
closely to Inoue’s (1995) results), results regarding perceptions and attitudes towards standard
Japanese were quite different compared with Long’s previous study (1997). Not only had the
perceived locations of standard Japanese expanded, but respondents also proved quite reluctant
to include their home dialect as part of the standard. Additionally, the mostly positive attitude
towards the Tokyo area found in Inoue’s research (1995) transformed into a more dynamic
collection of attitudes. Long concludes by suggesting that follow-up studies focus more closely
on linguistic identity, specifically focusing on how far the area encompassing one’s own dialect
expands.
Perceptual Dialect Studies at the Regional Level
Mase’s (1964) study on perceptions of the degree of dialect difference between speakers
in the bordering prefectures of Gifu and Nagano has become an often-cited study in Japanese
8
perceptual dialectology. Having respondents demarcate dialect boundaries based on four degrees
of difference, he found that the respondents grasped and perceived actual differences in dialect at
the regional level with significant accuracy. Mase argued that not only can production data be
confirmed by replicating such a study in various regions across Japan, but also that results could
further detection of dialect evolution if similar accuracy in results appear consistently.
Shifting geographic location from Japan to the United States, Benson’s (2003) study of
Ohioan perceptions and attitudes of dialect helps argue Mase’s case for both painting a more
detailed picture of regional differences in dialect as well as detecting possible changes in dialect.
Utilizing both a qualitative perceptual mapping task together with a quantitative degree-ofdifference task, Benson averaged the responses of subjects from four areas across Ohio to reach a
consensus view. Results exhibited a rich degree of difference in perceptions and attitudes
depending on area; however, the consensus of respondent results showed similarity to past
production data results while also pointing out the potential need to reassess dialectal variety in
certain areas of the state. Perhaps the most crucial lesson to be learned from Benson’s results is
that the regional production-based data and national perception-based data utilized as a base of
comparison in her study not only received supporting confirmation to a point, the consensus
view of Ohio was fleshed out by delving into local folk perceptions and attitudes.
Miyazaki and Aichi Prefecture
9
Mostly rural Miyazaki Prefecture, located in the southeast of Japan’s southernmost island
of Kyushu, has been demarcated into four distinct dialectal areas (Yoshimoto 1983).
Nonetheless, in the majority of perceptual dialect studies done at the national level (Long
1999a&b; Inoue 1995), Miyazaki is usually perceived as speaking similarly to the rest of Kyushu
– in fact, the prefectures of Kyushu are often merely lumped together as speaking an ambiguous
“Kyushu Dialect.” These aforementioned studies have further shown Kyushu as a whole
perceived as “unintelligent” and creating a “negative or neutral” response (Long 1999a&b; Inoue
1995), while Inoue’s (1995) study even found Miyazaki oddly singled out as the most
“unintelligent” within Kyushu.
Comparatively urban Aichi Prefecture, located in the heart of Japan’s largest island of
Honshu, has been identified as having only two main dialectal areas – Nagoya Dialect and
Mikawa Dialect (Long 1999a&b). Given Aichi’s location between Tokyo and Osaka, two cities
famous for mutually disliking the other’s dialect (Long 1997), Aichi generally garners an
intelligent, positive-to-neutral image from other parts of Japan (Long 1999; Inoue 1995).
Conclusion
Studies in perceptual dialectology at both the national and regional levels have shown
that folk linguistic perceptions of dialect can not only help confirm production-based data, but
furthermore, point to and potentially predict change in dialect. However, while a variety of
10
methodologies and focuses have been utilized to better understand the attitudes and map the
perceptions of non-linguists, calls for a more detailed understanding of individual “dialect
identity” in Japan, particularly in regards to perceptions of standard language and the influences
of dialectal perceptions, continue to echo unanswered. By adapting past methodologies and
adopting past consensus results as a base for comparison, I hope to begin shedding light on such
issues of “dialect identity” via studying Japanese speakers in two characteristically different
areas – Miyazaki and Aichi Prefecture – researching both regional and national perceptions of
dialect as a springboard into further examination of attitudes regarding dialect.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How do perceptions of regional dialect boundaries compare with prior production databased dialect boundaries for both Miyazaki and Aichi Prefecture?

How do perceptions of national dialect boundaries compare between Miyazaki and Aichi
Prefecture respondents?

How do attitudes regarding standard Japanese compare between Miyazaki and Aichi
Prefecture respondents?

How do attitudes regarding personal dialect compare between Miyazaki and Aichi
Prefecture respondents?
METHODOLOGY
11
Subjects
Subjects come from two separate prefectures within Japan: Miyazaki Prefecture in
southeastern Kyushu and Aichi Prefecture in central Honshu. Deciding to select subjects from
these particular areas results from the geographical, demographic, and linguistic differences
between the two regions. Aichi Prefecture, with only a couple prefectures separating it from
Tokyo – the capital – is the 4th most populous prefecture in Japan with approximately 7.4 million
residents. Miyazaki Prefecture, on the other hand, is one of the most distant prefectures from
Tokyo, with a much smaller population of 1.1 million people, which ranks 36th out of Japan’s 47
prefectures. Furthermore, while production data-based studies have commonly divided dialects
in Miyazaki into four distinct regions, Aichi Prefecture has usually been demarcated into just two
dialectal regions. Such variations, therefore, allow for an examination of potential similarities
and differences regarding perceptions and attitudes of dialect in Japan among subjects from
rather contrasting populations within a comparatively homogeneous country.
As for the subjects themselves, 30 individuals will be randomly selected from each
prefecture for a total of 60 subjects, with an even distribution of 15 males and 15 females within
each population. Subjects will be university students (Miyazaki University in Miyazaki and
Chubu University in Aichi) between the ages of 18-22. All subjects in the Miyazaki population,
as well as the Aichi population, will hail from a shared production data-demarcated dialect area
12
in their respective prefecture, having grown up (i.e. lived from at least age 5-18) in said area.
This criterion has bearing on the regional degree-of-difference task to be discussed later.
Finally, all subjects will have no educational background in the study of dialect or
linguistics.
Materials/Instruments
Accumulation of data will take place in two separate phases, with the initial phase
involving the completion of four tasks: a regional perceptual map task, a regional degree-ofdifference task, a national perceptual map task, and a national degree-of-correctness/pleasantness
task (see Appendix). The second phase – focus group interviews – will utilize the participants’
completed tasks in further clarifying and eliciting attitudes regarding personal dialect,
immediately surrounding dialects, and standard Japanese.
The first pair of instruments aims to measure perceptions of dialect boundary
demarcation and the degree of difference among dialects at the regional level for both subject
populations. These materials have been adapted from those used by Benson (2003) in her
regional study of dialect perceptions and attitudes of Ohio residents. Subjects will first
distinguish between areas where people speak similarly or differently by completing a perceptual
map task, which includes their home prefecture and all bordering prefectures (Appendix A =
Miyazaki; Appendix B = Aichi). Subjects are free to demarcate dialectal boundaries by drawing
13
lines, circling particular areas, or via whatever other method they please. Furthermore, subjects
will be asked to label each area with some sort of descriptor (regional name, aspects of the area’s
speech, etc.).
After finishing the perceptual map task, subjects will complete a degree-of-difference
task (Appendix C = Miyazaki; Appendix D = Aichi), rating how similarly or differently people
speak in 20 predetermined municipalities (14 from within the home prefecture and 6 from
bordering prefectures). Subjects rate the degree of difference on a scale of 1-4, with 1 being the
same, 2 being mostly the same, 3 being somewhat different, and 4 being quite different.
With the completion of the regional tasks, subjects’ perceptions and attitudes
regarding dialects at the national level will be measured using similar tasks, which have been
adapted from Long’s (1999a, 1999b) studies of national dialect perceptions in Japan. Subjects
will once again demarcate and label areas on a map – this time a map of the whole of Japan
(Appendix E) – with the only addition involving subjects being asked to specifically label the
area(s) where people speak standard Japanese. Then, subjects will complete a degree-ofcorrectness/pleasantness task (Appendix F) similar to the degree-of-difference task, where they
are asked to rate the level of “correctness” and “pleasantness” of each region they previously
identified on the perceptual map task. Both correctness and pleasantness will be rated via
14
semantic differential scales, where subjects circle the number which best corresponds to their
attitudes:
Correctness: Correct １・２・３・４・５ Incorrect
Pleasantness: Pleasant １・２・３・４・５ Unpleasant
During focus group interviews, the tasks completed by interview participants will be on hand to
help stimulate recall and guide discussion.
Procedure
Regional perception tasks will initially be administered to the subjects, followed by
administration of the national perception tasks upon completion of the first two tasks. Ideally,
these tasks will be administered in a single meeting to larger groups of subjects to save time (i.e.
to a class of students), although finding subjects who meet the study’s subject requirements,
coupled with potential difficulties in gaining access to a body of students during class time, may
demand administration to smaller groups over multiple time periods. Instructions for task
completion will both be handed out in written form as well as explained by the task
administrator.
Instructions will contain no use of the word “dialect;” rather, language such as
“similarity and difference in speech” will be used.
Primary analysis of individual maps and degree tasks will help in shaping more focused
questions for focus group interviews, which will take place at least a couple days after the
15
subjects have completed the aforementioned tasks. Selection of participants for the focus group
interviews will involve attempting to gather individuals who represent both prefectural mean
perceptions, as well as outliers (although time constraints and subject availability may make this
a rather arduous undertaking). Ideally, five subjects from each population will participate in the
focus group interviews, with one interview being held for each prefecture, respectively.
During the interviews, subjects will first be asked to clarify any map demarcations or
labels, which appear confusing or unintelligible. With the subjects’ completed materials on
hand, questions will then be asked centered on eliciting personal attitudes regarding where
“standard Japanese” is spoken, what constitutes “standard Japanese,” the expansiveness or
restrictedness of one’s personal dialect area, and awareness/pride in personal dialect. The aim of
these focus groups involves investigating the degree of similarity/difference in attitudes
regarding both standard and local dialects, which may or may not hint at a shared dialect identity
in one or both populations. Interviews will be audio recorded to allow for partial transcription
and analysis afterwards.
Type of Data
Examination of completed regional and national perceptual maps will help yield
consensus maps, or “gradient maps,” as Long (1999a) refers to them. The creation of consensus
16
maps allows for a look at the respective generalized perceptions of Miyazaki and Aichi subjects
regarding demarcations in dialect boundaries, both at the regional and national level.
Mean scores for all municipalities in the regional degree-of-difference task, as well as
mean scores for demarcated areas in the national degree-of-correctness/pleasantness task, will be
calculated for both populations. Regional degree-of-difference means for each municipality will
fall into one of four rankings: 1.00-1.75 representing speaks like me, 1.76-2.50 representing
speaks mostly like me, 2.51-3.25 representing speaks somewhat differently, and 3.26-4.00
representing speaks quite differently. Mean scores for areas demarcated in the national degreeof-correctness/pleasantness task will similarly be categorized into four rankings sharing the same
numerical values. The standard of deviation for these mean scores will be calculated as well.
Finally, qualitative labels from perceptual maps, together with focus group interview
data, will be compared and contrasted in investigating themes regarding dialect attitudes.
ANALYSIS
Regional and national consensus maps for both populations will be created via utilizing
similar techniques as Benson (2003) and Long (1999a). For regional maps, subject markings
will be traced onto a map displaying the locations of the 20 municipalities from the degree-ofdifference task. These areas will serve as landmarks in reaching a consensus – if the majority of
subjects identify Municipality X as falling within a particular dialect area, it will fall there on the
17
consensus map. All municipalities (prefectures for national maps) will similarly be examined in
creating the consensus maps.
Statistical analysis of degree-of-difference and degree-of-correctness/pleasantness mean
scores, as well as standards of deviation, will be reached through simple calculation. Qualitative
labels from maps and focus group interview data will be examined and tallied as positive,
negative, and neutral attitudes regarding a variety of themes including “attitudes regarding
standard Japanese,” “attitudes regarding personal dialect,” and “attitudes regarding regional
dialects.”
ANTICIPATED PROBLEMS
Given the reach and partially emergent design of this study, several potential limitations
may prove obstacles during data collection and analysis. First, subject unfamiliarity or
unawareness of language variation may lead to guessing rather than expression of authentic
perceptions on the tasks. Conversely, however, meticulously detailed demarcations could deem
particular subject data unusable in working to reach a consensus. In this respect, an abundance
of outliers as well could lead to an inability to create consensus perceptions at both the regional
and national level.
Regarding the focus groups, limited time in Miyazaki could make gaining access to
subjects for this region’s focus group interview quite difficult. Even assuming amassing
18
interview participants does not prove a problem, silence and/or unwillingness of subjects to
contribute their opinions, as well as subjects readily conforming to the opinions of others, could
potentially skew qualitative results. Finally, of course, the aspect of having too much qualitative
data to analyze also stands as a potential limitation.
EXPECTED RESULTS
Regional dialect boundary perceptions for both Miyazaki and Aichi populations will be
similar to production data-based boundaries, but more detailed. Past studies in regional
perceptual dialectology (Benson 2003, Mase 1964) have shown that folk linguists are quite in
tune with local language difference, and at times can even help hint at a need for reanalysis of
dialect variation in certain areas. Along these lines, given the greater production data-based
variety of dialects in Miyazaki, I expect that Miyazaki subjects will perceive a greater degree of
difference in their region than Aichi subjects.
Miyazaki respondents will perceive a larger area for “standard Japanese” than Aichi
respondents, as well as perceive “standard Japanese” as more correct/pleasant. Long’s (1999a,
1999b) research has shown that individuals often distinguish between personal and standard
dialects, finding personal dialect more pleasant (but not always more correct). Thus, given Aichi
Prefecture’s closer proximity to Tokyo (which is often labeled the home of “standard Japanese”),
I believe Aichi respondents will demonstrate a greater attitude towards distinguishing the
19
uniqueness and pleasantness of their dialects in comparison to the standard dialect. Miyazaki
subjects, on the other hand, will find the more distant “standard” spoken over a larger area.
Finally, the Aichi subjects will perceive a more expansive area where their personal
dialect is spoken, while Miyazaki subjects will find their personal dialect areas more restricted
and unique. I expect that the remoteness of Miyazaki, together with production data-based
findings of more dialect variety in Miyazaki compared to Aichi, will deliver results where
Miyazaki participants find that the way they speak is perhaps both unknown by the rest of Japan,
as well as unintelligible to many other Japanese speakers, fostering a greater sense of dialect
uniqueness in Miyazaki subjects.
CONCLUSION
This study will examine the similarities and differences in perceptions and attitudes
regarding dialect variation in Japan between Japanese subjects from two geographically distant
populations. Investigating perceptions of regional dialect variation has the potential to both
support production data-based dialect mapping as well as raise awareness of areas where nonlinguists may perceive richer variation in language than said mapping illustrates. Comparing
perceptions and attitudes of Miyazaki and Aichi subjects in regards to standard Japanese and
personal dialect can further shed light on the influence geographical distance from the perceived
“standard language” has on the formation of these perceptions and attitudes.
20
Japan is witnessing several present-day attempts to revitalize dialect awareness and pride
in numerous regions across the archipelago (Hara 2005); furthermore, generational shifts in
attitudes regarding not only standard Japanese and personal dialect, but dialects espoused as
“cool” in the mass media such as the Kansai dialect continue to reshape social functions of
dialect in everyday life (Jinnouchi 2007, Hibiya 1983). Understanding folk linguistic
perceptions and attitudes regarding dialect, thus, stands important not only for linguistic mapping
of such trends, but additionally for understanding the roles individuals attach to standard
Japanese and personal dialect in everyday life. As Kuiper (2005) notes, while perceptual data
may not always mesh with production based-data, perceptions indeed work to shape reality.
21
REFERENCES
Benson, E.J. (2003). Folk Linguistic Perceptions and the Mapping of Dialect Boundaries.
American Speech, 78, 3, 307-330.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Inoue, F. (1996). Subjective Dialect Division in Great Britain. In Preston, D.R. (1999).
Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology, Vol. 1 (pp. 161-176). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hara, K. (2005). Regional Dialect and Cultural Development in Japan and Europe. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 175-176, 193-211.
Hibiya, J. (1983). Usage Patterns of Regional and Standard Japanese. Sophia Linguistica, 11,
214-221.
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
Jinnouchi, M. (2007). Dialect Boom in Japan. Dialectologia et Geolinguistica, 15, 44-51.
Kuiper, L. (2005). Perception is Reality: Parisian and Provencal Perceptions of Regional
Varieties of French. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9, 1, Feb, 28-52.
22
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. (1999a). Geographical Perceptions of Japanese Dialect Regions. In Preston, D.R.
(1999). Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology, Vol. 1 (pp. 161-176). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Long, D. (1999b). 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, 373395.
Sibata, T. (1959). Consciousness of Dialect Boundaries. In Preston, D.R. (1999). Handbook of
Perceptual Dialectology, Vol.1 (pp. 39-62). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
23
Appendix A
24
Appendix B
25
相違度アンケート（宮崎）
同じ
ほぼ同じ
やや違う
かなり違う
えびの市
1
2
3
4
大分市
1
2
3
4
鹿児島市
1
2
3
4
門川町
1
2
3
4
霧島市
1
2
3
4
串間市
1
2
3
4
熊本市
1
2
3
4
小林市
1
2
3
4
佐伯市
1
2
3
4
西都市
1
2
3
4
椎葉村
1
2
3
4
高千穂町
1
2
3
4
高鍋町
1
2
3
4
日南市
1
2
3
4
延岡市
1
2
3
4
人吉市
1
2
3
4
日向市
1
2
3
4
三股町
1
2
3
4
都城市
1
2
3
4
宮崎市
1
2
3
4
Appendix C
26
相違度アンケート（愛知）
同じ
ほぼ同じ
やや違う
かなり違う
飯田市
1
2
3
4
一宮市
1
2
3
4
犬山市
1
2
3
4
岡崎市
1
2
3
4
春日井市
1
2
3
4
岐阜市
1
2
3
4
設楽町
1
2
3
4
新城市
1
2
3
4
瀬戸市
1
2
3
4
高山市
1
2
3
4
田原市
1
2
3
4
津市
1
2
3
4
飛島村
1
2
3
4
豊田市
1
2
3
4
豊山町
1
2
3
4
名古屋市
1
2
3
4
浜松市
1
2
3
4
南知多町
1
2
3
4
吉良町
1
2
3
4
四日市市
1
2
3
4
Appendix D
27
Appendix E
28
訛りに対する態度・正しさ
地方
好感
→
不快感
アンケート
正しい
→
正しくない
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
１・２・３・４・５
Appendix F