Content uploaded by Tekabe Legesse Feleke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tekabe Legesse Feleke on May 02, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Tekabe Legesse Feleke*
Dialect separation and cross-dialectal
influence: a study on the grammatical
gender of Oromo
https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2022-0119
Received July 27, 2022; accepted February 25, 2024; published online May 3, 2024
Abstract: Theextenttowhichthegrammarofonedialectinfluences the grammar
of another and the mechanisms that bidialectal speakers employ to distinguish a
target grammar from non-target grammar have not been adequately investigated.
In this study, we elucidate these issues by investigating the grammatical gender
of Oromo, a Cushitic language that is spoken in Ethiopia. The results from two
successive offline experiments indicate that Oromo bidialectal speakers can
differentiate between the grammar of their native dialect and that of a non-native
dialect in both spoken and written modes. This finding implies the existence of a
dual-system representation of grammar. Moreover, there is a significant amount of
dialect mixing that varies across various developmental stages and modalities. The
bidialectal speakers’ability to differentiate between the grammar of their native
dialect and that of a non-native dialect is constrained by the magnitude of
their exposure to the non-native dialect, modalities, and a specific property of
grammatical forms. Here, we propose an interactive dialect separation model that
accounts for diverse dialect contexts.
Keywords: bidialectal speakers; cross-dialectal influence; dialect separation; gram-
matical gender
1 Introduction
Bidialectalism, also called bilectalism, refers to a case where individuals are
exposed to distinct varieties of a language that are usually mutually intelligible
(Kubota et al. 2023). Bidialectals, or individuals who speak mutually intelligible
varieties, employ the acquired varieties for various social purposes (Chambers and
Trudgill 1998; Melinger 2018). Hence, during everyday conversations, speakers
engage in selecting linguistic forms that are suitable to a specificsocialcontextand
*Corresponding author: Tekabe Legesse Feleke, Department of Language and Culture, AcqVA Aurora
Research Center, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway, E-mail: tekabe.l.feleke@uit.no
Linguistics 2024; aop
Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
in inhibiting those that are unwanted. There is no consensus among scholars as to
the mechanisms that underpin this process. In this context, the central topic of
debate has revolved around whether bidialectal speakers have two grammatical
representations that allow them to switch between dialects. The advocates of
universal bilingualism (e.g., Amaral and Roeper 2014; Eide and Åfarli 2020; Roeper
1999, 2016) and other recent psycholinguistic studies (e.g., Kubota et al. 2023;
Kupisch and Klaschik 2017; Lundquist et al. 2020; Lundquist and Vangsnes 2018)
propose a two-system grammatical representation of bidialectal speakers. These
researchers argue that each bidialectal speaker has a separate grammar for each
register to which they are exposed. However, the treatment of bidialectalism as a
subcategory of bilingualism has not been unequivocally recognized. Some studies
posit that bidialectal speakers possess a co-dependent underlying grammatical
representation similar to that of monolinguals (see Blanco-Elorrieta and
Caramazza 2021; Cheshire and Stein 1997; Hazen 2001; Henry 2005; Hudson 1996;
Labov 1998; Leivada et al. 2017; Wei 2000).
Previous empirical studies that investigated dialect separation and cross-
dialectal influence (e.g., Kupisch and Klaschik 2017; Leivada et al. 2017; Lundquist
et al. 2020; Lundquist and Vangsnes 2018) assumed that if bidialectal speakers
adjust their processing based on a dialect context, they have a two-system repre-
sentation. If they fail to adjust their processing, they are considered to have a one-
system representation. The underlying rationale is that bidialectal speakers
recognize that certain word orders, morphological classes, and phonemic contrasts
are restricted to only one of the two dialect contexts. In other words, bidialectal
speakers use the grammar of each dialect in their respective context as each dialect
context demands different linguistic forms and structures. Motivated by this line of
reasoning, we investigated the extent to which bidialectal speakers distinguish the
grammar of their native dialect from that of a non-native dialect. Specifically, we
explored speakers of Oromo, an understudied Lowland East Cushitic language that
is spoken in Ethiopia. Thus far, little is known about how bidialectal speakers keep
the grammars of their acquired dialects separate.
Dialect separation is an ability to keep two competing systems apart (see
Kupisch and Klaschik 2017; Lundquist et al. 2020; Lundquist and Vangsnes 2018). It
differs from cross-dialectal influence, which essentially involves either a partial
or a complete substitution of one dialect system with another (Kupisch and
Klaschik 2017; Leung 2006). Dialect separation and cross-dialectal influence denote
contrasting cognitive phenomena. Supposedly, separating two grammatical rep-
resentations requires full control over the influence between the two representa-
tions. However, full control is usually unattainable because the grammars of
both dialects actively compete for selection (see Blumenfeld and Marian 2013;
Goldrick et al. 2016; Kroll et al. 2014; Kupisch and Klaschik 2017; Lanwermeyer et al.
2Feleke
2016; Lundquist et al. 2020). The scale of the influence of one system of grammar on
another and the ability to manage this influence can vary as a function of the
intensity of the individuals’exposure to the dialects and several other factors
(Chambers 1992; Kupisch and Klaschik 2017; Nycz 2015; Rodina and Westergaard
2015; Siegel 2010). In essence, there is also a distinction between “dialect mixing”
and “cross-dialectal influence”. Cross-dialectal influence presupposes distinct
representations of grammars for bidialectal speakers, whereas dialect mixing does
not necessarily make such an assumption (Kupisch 2008; Kupisch and Klaschik
2017).
In the present study, we investigate cross-dialectal influence and speakers’
ability to distinguish the grammar of their native dialect from that of a non-native
dialect, focusing on two Oromo dialects: Eastern and Western (see Clamons 1992,
1993; Feleke and Lohndal 2023; Hundie 2002; Kebede 2009; Negesse 2015 for Oromo
dialect classifications). The two dialects differ in how they mark gender. The
Eastern dialect has a phonology-based gender assignment pattern and an overtly
marked gender agreement. Conversely, the Western Oromo dialect has no gender
since its feminine gender has disappeared or become neutralized (Clamons 1992,
1993; Feleke and Lohndal 2023). In the past, there was no direct contact between the
Eastern and Western Oromo dialects owing to their non-adjacent geographical
locations –the Eastern dialect being spoken in the eastern part of the country and
the Western dialect in the western part. However, recently, the Eastern dialect has
experienced an increasing influence from the Western Oromo dialect since the
Western dialect has become a medium of instruction in elementary schools (since
1994). The influence was essentially introduced via schools, but media might have
also played an important role. In this regard, for instance, it is common to
encounter a TV anchor who reads news in the Western Oromo dialect. The recent
expansion of social media and the entertainment industries may also have its own
contributions. Because of these and other factors, there has been a shift in the
previously held status quo of the Eastern dialect. Currently, most literate native
speakers of the Eastern Oromo dialect are bidialectal: proficient in both the native
Eastern and Western Oromo dialects.
Evidently, the Eastern dialect speakers’exposure to the Western Oromo dialect
can affect how the Eastern Oromo dialect is perceived and processed by the native
speakers. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the extent to which
this exposure has influenced the comprehension and production of the grammars
of both Oromo dialects. Specifically, the study aims to address the following
objectives: (a) to examine the extent to which bidialectal Oromo speakers distin-
guish the grammars of their native dialect, (b) to determine the magnitude of the
influence of the gender system of the Western Oromo dialect on accessing and
comprehending the gender system of the Eastern Oromo dialect, (c) to examine the
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 3
patterns of the cross-dialectal influence across various developmental stages, and
(d) to elucidate the role of modalities (speaking and writing) and the properties of
grammatical forms in accessing the Oromo grammatical gender.
To this end, we investigate the gender agreement of the Eastern and West-
ern Oromo dialects in two successive experiments. In the first experiment, we
investigate the extent to which bidialectal speakers of the two Oromo dialects
distinguish the grammar of their native dialect from that of the non-native West-
ern dialect in the spoken mode. We utilize a picture-description production task for
the data collection. The task is administered both for the Eastern and Western
Oromo dialects in their respective context. The types of gender agreement targeted
include noun–interrogative pronoun and noun–adjective gender agreement. The
target participants are tenth graders with a minimum of nine years of exposure to
the Western Oromo dialect. In the second experiment, we investigate whether the
bidialectal speakers recognize the grammar of their native dialect in the written
mode. For the data collection, we administer the forced choice test (Jäkel and
Wichmann 2006; Pavlov et al. 2021; Stadthagen-González et al. 2018). The bidialectal
Oromo speakers are presented with pairs of sentences, one in the Eastern and the
other in the Western dialect, and are instructed to choose the correct grammar
of the native Eastern dialect. Specifically, we investigate five gender agreement
domains: noun–possessive pronoun, noun–demonstrative pronoun, noun–inter-
rogative pronoun, noun–adjective, and noun–verb gender agreement. To examine
the pattern of the cross-dialectal influence across the developmental stages, we
investigate a wide range of participants, from children to adults.
The Ethiopian language context is an ideal testing ground to address the out-
lined objectives. The Ethiopian language region is known as one of the most
linguistically diverse areas in the world. More than eighty languages are spoken
in Ethiopia (Bisang 2006; Ferguson 1970), with dialects and sub-dialects of each
language. Oromo is one of the languages that are widely spoken in the area. It is
the working language of the Oromia Regional State, one of the states in Ethiopia,
and serves as a medium of instruction in most elementary schools in the region.
Oromo has several dialects, none of which are officially recognized as a “standard
dialect”(Blazek 2010; Clamons 1992, 1993; Feleke and Lohndal 2023; Hundie 2002;
Kebede 2009; Negesse 2015). However, for historical reasons, the Western Oromo
dialect is taught in schools and serves as a medium of instruction in elementary
schools. Consequently, most non-Western Oromo dialect-speaking children obtain
exposure to the Western dialect from early elementary school. In the present study,
we investigate native Eastern dialect speakers who learned the Western dialect in a
formal school context. The target Eastern dialect is spoken in the West Hararge
Zone, encompassing areas around the Ciroo and Hirna towns. These areas are
located approximately 360 km eastward from Addis Ababa, the capital.
4Feleke
By investigating cross-dialectal influence between the two Oromo dialects, we
strive to obtain insights into the dynamics that underpin the representation of
grammars in bidialectal speakers. Specifically, we endeavor to determine how
bidialectal speakers distinguish grammatical forms of their native dialect from those
of a non-native dialect in production and comprehension and what factors constrain
or foster the choices. A systematic investigation of the mechanisms that underpin
bidialectal speakers’choice of grammar is essential in numerous ways. First, it
elucidates the long-standing discord regarding the representation of bidialectal
grammars. As previously noted, whether bidialectal speakers have separate gram-
mars or just one has been a subject of debate (Amaral and Roeper 2014; Cheshire and
Stein 1997; Eide and Åfarli 2020; Henry 2005; Leivada et al. 2017; Roeper 1999, 2016).
Second, such an investigation reveals the mechanisms that underpin dialect
comprehension and cross-dialectal influences. It also illuminates the patterns of
cross-dialectal influence and the factors associated with the patterns.
This study is organized into six sections, the first of which is the above intro-
duction. Section 2 presents the background of the study; Section 3 describes research
questions and predictions; Section 4 describes the methods used and the results;
Section 5 discusses the results and presents our proposed interactive dialect selec-
tion model (IDSM) for dialect selection and cross-dialectal influence; and Section 6
culminates the study with the conclusions.
2 Background
2.1 Dialect separation and cross-dialectal influence
Following the narrow definition of grammar provided by universal bilingualism
(see Amaral and Roeper 2014; Roeper 1999,2016),weassumethatiftwoproperties
that are not stateable within a single grammar exist in a language, there are two
separate grammars. This also means that every bidialectal speaker has a separate
grammar for each dialect they speak. Substantial empirical evidence on the sepa-
rate grammar of bidialectal speakers comes from production, eye tracking, and
event-related potential (ERP) studies. For instance, in a recent intraspeaker code-
switching study conducted by Lundquist et al. (2020), bidialectal speakers of
Bokmål and Tromsø dialects effectively distinguished morpho-syntactic forms of
the two dialects in both spoken and written modes. The aforementioned re-
searchers found a high degree of interference in the spoken mode than in the
written mode. Similarly, Kupisch and Klaschik (2017) conducted production ex-
periments on the acquisition of Venetan-Italian dialects; in their study, bidialectal
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 5
children produced more Venetan grammatical gender forms in the Venetan
experiment
1
and more Italian grammatical gender forms in the Italian experiment,
implying that the bidialectal speakers have a separate grammar for each dialect.
Moreover, Lundquist and Vangsnes (2018) conducted a visual world paradigm
experiment on bidialectal speakers of Sogn and Oslo dialects. The experiment
affirmed that bidialectal speakers can have either independent or co-dependent
representations of grammar, a determination primarily influenced by the
speakers’prior experiences with different dialects. These researchers identified
four types of bidialectal speakers based on their processing profiles: (1) true
bidialectal speakers –those who adjust their processing mechanisms based on
inputs, (2) true monolinguals –those who use only their native dialect during
online comprehension, (3) monolingual generalizers –those who impose the
system of their native dialect on other dialects, and (4) accommodated mono-
linguals –those who impose the systems of other dialects on their native dialect.
Recently, Garcia et al. (2022) also investigated bidialectal speakers of General
American and African-American Vernacular English using ERPs and behavioral
tasks. The ERP and behavioral responses showed that bidialectal speakers have a
dual-language representation. Similarly, Kubota et al. (2023) examined number and
gender agreement processing by native Northern Norwegian dialect speakers and
by the speakers of other Norwegian dialects who had exposure to the Northern
dialect. Their ERP results showed that bilectalism entails the representation of
distinct mental grammars for each dialect.
Studies show that grammars of bidialectal speakers often compete with and
influence each other (see Declerck et al. 2021; Kirk et al. 2022; Kupisch and Klaschik
2017; Lundquist et al. 2020). In principle, cross-dialectal influence is the result of
competition between two representations, either lexical or grammatical. For
instance, separating the grammar of one dialect from the grammar of another
during sentence processing requires regulating these competitions. There is no
obligatorily reciprocal relationship between cross-dialectal influence and dialect
separation. In other words, the existence of a separate system of grammars does
not necessarily entail the absence of cross-dialectal influence and vice versa.
Bidialectal speakers always need to suppress a less active grammar to allow the use
of the more active one. The activation level of each grammar is determined by the
number of inputs that a context offers and other variables (Hopkins et al. 1995; Liu
et al. 2017; Lundquist et al. 2020; Marian and Spivey 2003). Therefore, both dialect
separation and cross-dialectal influence are affected by the competition between
the two active systems, whereas separating one dialect from another requires the
1In the Italian experiment, the interlocutors were Italian speakers; in the Venetan experiment, the
interlocutors were Venetan speakers.
6Feleke
ability to suppress one of the competing systems, and a lack of such an ability leads
to cross-dialectal influence.
As noted in Section 1, the existence of independent representation of bidia-
lectal grammars remains arguable. Many studies indicate that bidialectal speakers
often fail to recognize the distinction between the grammars of their dialects,
implying that bidialectal speakers have a co-dependent representation. The
co-dependent view has been promoted in studies that investigated both the rep-
resentation of the grammars of bidialectal speakers (e.g., Cheshire and Stein 1997;
Henry2005;Leivadaetal.2017)andthelexical representation of bidialectal
speakers (e.g., Declerck and Kirk 2023; Melinger 2018, 2021). These studies argue
that bidialectal speakers have a co-dependent representation as opposed to the
bilingual speakers who have an independent representation. Regarding the
advocates of the co-dependent representation, bidialectal communities reveal
sociolinguistic repertoires that are intermediate between two dialects (see
Kupisch and Klaschik 2017; Trudgill 2003). This blurred between-dialect boundary
makes dialect mixing inevitable. Bidialectal speakers may also fail to keep their
dialects separate because of multiple social functions of dialects (Curtin 2020;
Gawlitzek-Maiwaldt and Tracy 1996; Genesee 1989; Kupisch and Klaschik 2017;
Labov 1972).
The co-dependent representation of bidialectal speakers can be an outcome of
various other factors. For instance, bidialectal speakers may prefer the prescriptive
grammars of the non-native dialect. Studies indicate that being aware of certain
prescriptive norms can swing the overall behavior of the speakers’choice of
grammatical forms. For example, Cornips and Poletto (2005) argued that the degree
of the influence of the prescriptive norm on the speakers’choice of grammar varies
depending on the perception of the speakers. When the speakers are conscious of
being bidialectal speakers, they behave in a different way depending on whether
the phenomenon is obligatory or optional. Those phenomena that are obligatory in
each prescribed grammar are preserved by the native speakers. In other words,
the speakers permit the interference from the non-prescribed grammar only
when the grammatical principles of the prescribed dialect are not violated. The
similarity between dialects is another factor. In this regard, Leivada et al. (2017)
suggested that very similar dialects have extremely blurred boundaries that are
challenging to discern. Hence, similar dialects are predisposed to rapid diffusions
of features because the features are more similar than different. In a similar vein,
Cornips and Poletto (2005) affirmed that whenever there are close variants,
speakers may change their way of speaking without a clear point of transition
between dialects.
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 7
2.2 Grammatical gender in Oromo
Oromo is a Lowland East Cushitic language with two gender classes: masculine and
feminine (Clamons 1993; Feleke and Lohndal 2023; Mous 2008; Owens 1985). Following
Corbett (1991) and Hockett (1958), we define gender as a class of nouns reflected in the
behavior of associated words. Hence, affixes on nouns expressing numbers, cases, or
definiteness are not exponents of gender. Instead, gender is an agreement with a
noun that is marked on elements such as determiners and adjectives. Gender
assignment and gender agreement are distinct concepts. Gender assignment refers
to the way that gender is allotted to nouns, whereas gender agreement is the concord
displayed on elements that agree with nouns (Corbett 1991). Most Oromo nouns have
vowel (/a/, /i/, /o/, /u/ and /e/)
2
endings, and only a few nouns have consonant endings.
Nouns that have consonant endings are masculine in gender (see [1]).
(1) a. fuňňaan diimat-ø-e
nose become red-3.M.SG-PFV
‘The nose became red.’
b. torbaan darb-ø-e
week pass-3.M.SG-PFV
‘A week passed.’
c. halkan ɗeerat-ø-e
night become long-3.M.SG-PFV
‘The night became long.’
d. bišaan danf-ø-e
water boil-3.M.SG-PFV
‘The water boiled.’
Table 1 shows the gender assignment in the Eastern Oromo dialect. In the Eastern
dialect, nouns that end with non-central vowels, /e/, /i/, /o/ and /u/, are categorized as
feminine (a–d), while nouns ending with low central vowels, /a/ and /aa/, are
classified as masculine (e–h). The table also shows that the Eastern dialect has a
phonology-based gender assignment. In the Eastern dialect, the word-final vowels
serve as declension class markers and determine, for example, the type of number
suffixes attached to the nouns. Nouns ending with consonants and low central
vowels receive -oota as a number marker, and nouns ending with non-central
vowels receive the suffix-lee (see Busterud et al. 2019; Comrie 1999; Corbett 1982;
Enger 2004; Kürschner and Nübling 2011; Steriopolo 2017 for the gender-declension
class interaction in non-Cushitic languages). However, in the Western Oromo
2We listed only the short vowels, but the same is true for corresponding long vowels: /aa/, /ee/, /ii/,
/oo/ and /uu/.
8Feleke
dialect, owing to the neutralized feminine gender, there is no masculine versus
feminine distinction (Clamons 1992, 1993; Feleke and Lohndal 2023).
Table 2 presents the differences between the Eastern and Western Oromo
dialects in terms of gender marking. In the Western dialect, elements associated
with nouns, such as verbs (a), adjectives (b), possessive pronouns (c), interrogative
pronouns (d), and demonstrative pronouns (e), do not encode grammatical gender.
In the Western dialect, only the declension classes have remained unaffected,
resulting in a widespread syncretism of the feminine gender.
3 Research questions and predictions
In the present study, we examine the extent to which the Oromo bidialectal speakers
differentiate the grammatical gender forms between one dialect and another. In
addition, we explore the magnitude of the influence of the grammatical gender of the
Western Oromo dialect on the grammatical gender of the Eastern Oromo dialect
during sentence production and comprehension. Specifically, we aim to answer the
following questions.
a. Can bidialectal speakers distinguish the grammar of their native dialect from the
grammar of a non-native dialect?
Following Kupisch and Klaschik (2017), Lundquist and Vangsnes (2018), and
Lundquist et al. (2020), we predict that bidialectal Oromo speakers can differentiate
the grammar of their native dialect from that of a non-native dialect. Specifically,
we anticipate that the grammatical gender forms of the Eastern dialect are more
Table :Gender assignment in the Eastern Oromo dialect.
Nouns thathave /e/, /ee/, /i/, /ii/, /o/, /oo/,
/u/ and /uu/ endings
Nouns that have /a/ and /aa/ endings
a. šittoo bareedd-uu e. gurbaa gabaab-aa
perfume good-Fboy short-M
‘A good perfume’‘A short boy’
b. ulee gudd-oo f. mala barbaččis-aa
stick big-Fmeans necessary-M
‘A big stick’‘A necessary means’
c. lukkuu gabaabd-uu g. hoğğaa furd-aa
chicken small-Ftea concentrated-M
‘A small chicken’‘Concentrated tea’
d. badii gudd-oo h. mana balʔ-aa
mistak big-Fhouse wide-M
‘A big mistake’‘A wide house’
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 9
frequently produced and chosen in the Eastern dialect context and that the
grammatical gender forms of the Western Oromo dialect are more frequently
produced in the Western dialect context.
b. Does the grammatical gender of the Western Oromo dialect exert an influence?
In accordance with Kupisch and Klaschik (2017) as well as Lundquist and Vangsnes
(2018), we predict bi-directional cross-dialectal influences, namely, Eastern-to-Western
and Western-to-Eastern influences. Moreover, we assume that these influences are
Table :Comparison between gender agreements of the Eastern and Western Oromo dialects.
Agreement Gender Western dialect Eastern dialect
a N-V M hulaa-n ćab-ø-e hulaa-n ćab-ø-e
door-NOM break-.
M-PFV
door-NOM break-.
M-PFV
‘The door is broken.’‘The door is broken.’
Flafee-n ćab-ø-e lafee-n ćab-t-e
bone-NOM break-.
M-PFV
bone-NOM break-.
F-PFV
‘The bone is broken.’‘The bone is broken.’
b N-Adj. M mann-i gudd-aa ɗa mann-i gudd-aa ɗa
house-NOM big-MCOP house-NOM big-MCOP
‘The house is big.’‘The house is big.’
Fdaabboo-n gudd-aa ɗa daabboo-n gudd-oo ɗa
bread-NOM big-MCOP bread-NOM big-FCOP
‘The bread is big.’‘The bread is big.’
c N-POSS. M harka k-iyya hark k-iyya
hand M-my hand M-my
‘My hand.’‘My hand.’
Fhandaak’oo k-iyya handaak’oo t-iyya
chiken M-my chiken F-my
‘My chicken.’‘My chicken.’
d N-INT. M fuňňaa-n k-ami fuňňaa-n k-ami
nose-NOM M-which? nose-NOM M-which?
‘Which is a nose?’‘Which is a nose?’
Fharoo-n k-ami haroo-n t-ami
lake-NOM M-which? lake-NOM F-which
‘Which is a lake?’‘Which is a lake?’
e N-DEM. M k-un ɗakaa ɗa k-un ɗakaa ɗa
M-this stone COP M-this stone COP
‘This is a stone.’‘This is a stone.’
Fk-un haamtuu ɗa t-un haamtuu ɗa
M-this sickle COP F-this sickle COP
‘This is a sickle.’‘This is a sickle.’
10 Feleke
associated with the prolonged exposure to formal instruction in the Western
Oromodialectandtothelexicalandgrammatical similarity between the two
dialects. We test this assumption by comparing the number of grammatical gender
forms of the Eastern dialect produced and chosen by the bidialectal speakers to the
number of the grammatical gender forms of the Western dialect produced and
chosenbythesamespeakers.
c. Is there a pattern that characterizes the cross-dialectal influence of the grammar
of the Western dialect?
In Experiment II, we determine the pattern of the influence by comparing the
participants’response accuracy across the developmental stages, spanning from
childhood to adults. Following Johannessen and Larsson (2018) and Rodina and
Westergaard (2015, 2021), we predict different degrees of influence of the Western
dialect at various developmental stages. During the first phase of exposure to the
Western dialect, we do not expect a significant influence of the gender system of the
Western dialect. Instead, we assume that the influence progressively mounts and
exerts the maximum impact somewhere at the later age, following an increased
duration of exposure to the Western dialect.
d. Do modality and individual properties of the grammatical form play a role in
dialect separation and cross-dialectal influence?
Following Jankowiak and Korpal (2018) and Lundquist et al. (2020), we predict an
enhanced influence of the grammar of the Western dialect in the spoken mode
(Experiment I) than in the written mode (Experiment II).
4 Methods
To answer the questions outlined in Section 3, we conducted two successive exper-
iments. In Experiment I, we administered a picture description task to determine the
extent to which the Oromo bidialectal speakers use the grammar of each dialect in
conversation and to investigate the degree of cross-dialectal influence during the
conversation. In Experiment II, we used a forced choice task to investigate the same
concerns in the written mode.
4.1 Experiment I: picture description task
4.1.1 Task and the participants
In the production task, we used thirty (ten sets) pictures of animate and inanimate
objects that describe various actions such as the one illustrated in Figure 1. All the
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 11
nouns designated by the pictures are feminine in the Eastern dialect and gender-
neutral in the Western dialect. Each set of pictures was displayed on a personal
computer, and the participants were told to describe the actions indicated by the set
of pictures. The task was performed in pairs in the form of turn-by-turn asking and
answering questions; one of the interlocutors asked a question, and the other
answered and vice versa. In total, thirty-six participants took part in the task. First,
eighteen participants (nine pairs) performed the task in the Western dialect. The
instruction was given in the Western Oromo dialect by an Oromo school teacher who
was a native speaker of the dialect. The teacher told the participants that he wanted
to assess their Oromo-speaking skill.
The aim of the task was to allow the participants to produce sentences in the
Western Oromo dialect that did not contain gender agreements between nouns and
adjectives and between nouns and interrogative pronouns, such as those presented
in (2). The test was administered in a silent classroom in Ciroo Secondary School, in
the West Hararge Zone of the Oromia Region.
(2) Question: saree k-ami adurree ariyaa ğira?
dog.MM-which cat chasing AUX.S.M.SG
‘Which dog is chasing the cat?’
Answer: saree daalaččaa adurree ariyaa ğira
Dog.Mwhite-brown.Mcat chasing AUX.3.M.SG
‘The white-brown dog is chasing the cat.’
The remaining eighteen (nine pairs) participants were tested in a “mini”cafeteria
outside the school compound. Only two participants, most of them friends, were
tested at once. In this case, the instruction was given in the Eastern Oromo dialect by
the principal investigator who also introduced himself in the Eastern Oromo dialect
and described himself as a resident of the area. Before the experiment, the principal
investigator initiated a short conversation on issues such as family situations and
health conditions, exclusively using the Eastern dialect. Subsequently, the partici-
pants were instructed to begin the task and told that the purpose of the task was
learning some names of common objects used in the area. The actual goal of the task
Figure 1: Picture description task.
12 Feleke
was allowing the participants to produce sentences of the Eastern dialect that con-
tained gender agreements between nouns and adjectives and between nouns and
interrogative pronouns, such as the one presented in (3).
(3) Question: saree t-ami bašoo
3
ariyaa ğir-a
4
dog.FF-which cat chasing AUX.3.M.SG
‘Which dog is chasing the cat?’
Answer: saree daala-ttii bašoo ariyaa ğir-a
dog.Fwhite brown-Fcat chasing AUX.3.M.SG
‘The white-brown dog is chasing the cat.’
The participants were Grade 10 students who had nine years of exposure to the
Western dialect. These students were born and grew up in the eastern part of
Ethiopia, in Ciroo and its vicinity, where the Eastern dialect is spoken as a native
language. The conversations were recorded using a Sony sound recorder. Subse-
quently, the number of occurrences of the target gender agreements (noun–adjective
and noun–interrogative pronoun) was manually counted.
4.1.2 Results
The responses produced by the participants during the picture-description
production task were tallied on the basis of the number of noun–adjective and
noun–interrogative pronoun gender agreements that they contained. The
responses were categorized into “Western dialect agreement”if the produced
agreement was the neutralized one and “Eastern dialect agreement”if otherwise.
There were some instances of repetitions of the same adjective and interrogative
pronoun in a single utterance. In such cases, only one of them was counted. In a few
cases, different adjectives of colors were used in a single utterance; in these
cases, both adjectives were counted. There were also a few cases in which the
interlocutorswereunsureandchangedtheirpreferencefortheinterrogative
pronouns and adjectives in the same utterance in such cases, only the first
utterance was counted. Furthermore, the participants produced a few noun–verb
and noun–relative pronoun gender agreements. We did not report responses
containing these as they were irrelevant to the current discussion. Most produced
sentences contain the present continuous tense such as the ones in (4a–b). In
Oromo, there is no gender agreement between subjects and verbs in sentences
containing focus constructions such as in (4a) and (4b). In (4a) and (4b), saree ‘dog’is
the focused subject.
3“Cat”is adurree in the Western dialect but bašoo in the Eastern dialect.
4In Oromo, all focused subjects invariably require 3.M.SG on verbs.
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 13
(4) a. saree´ t-ami bašoo ariyaa ğira?
dog F-which cat chasing AUX.3.M.SG
‘Which dog is chasing a cat?’
b. saree´ daal-atti bašoo ariyaa ğira
dog white-brown-F cat chasing AUX.3.M.SG
‘It is the white-brown dog that is chasing the cat.’
In the Eastern Oromo dialect context, 69 % noun–adjective gender agreement and
64 % noun–interrogative pronoun gender agreement of the Eastern dialect were
produced. In the Western dialect context, 66.5 % neutralized noun–adjective
gender agreement and 63.5 % neutralized noun–interrogative pronoun gender
agreement of the Western dialect were produced. In other words, in the Eastern
dialect context, sentences containing the Eastern dialect gender agreement were
higher than sentences containing the neutralized Western dialect gender agree-
ment, and the opposite was true in the Western dialect context. To inspect the
statistical significance of these differences, we ran a generalized linear model
(Poisson family) in R (version 3.2.3) and predicted the influence of grammatical
conditions (noun–adjective gender agreement of the Eastern dialect, noun–inter-
rogative pronoun gender agreement of the Eastern dialect, noun–adjective
neutralized gender agreement of the Western dialect, and noun–interrogative
pronoun neutralized gender agreement of the Western dialect) and the dialects
(Eastern and Western) on the number of correctly produced sentences. We used
dummy coding for reference to the multiple levels of the categorical variables. For
the grammatical conditions, the noun–adjective agreement of the Eastern dialect
served as a reference level; for the dialect conditions, the Eastern dialect served as a
reference level.
We found a significant effect of the dialects; the participants were less accurate
in the Western dialect context than in the Eastern dialect context (B=−0.79
[−1.23, −0.37], p< 0.001). Furthermore, there was a significant effect of the gram-
matical conditions; compared with the baseline noun–adjective gender agreement
of the Eastern dialect, the participants’accuracy for the neutralized noun–adjec-
tive gender agreement of the Western dialect was lower (B=−0.72[−1.16, −0.31],
p< 0.001). Similarly, the participants were less accurate when it came to the
neutralized noun–adjective gender agreement of the Western dialect than in the
noun–interrogative pronoun gender agreement of the Eastern dialect (B=−0.76
[−1.20, −0.34], p< 0.001). There was no significant difference between the baseline
noun–adjective gender agreement of the Eastern dialect and the noun–interrog-
ative pronoun gender agreement of the Eastern dialect.
There was also a significant interaction between the dialects and the grammatical
conditions. Pairwise honestly significant difference (HSD) Tukey comparisons across
14 Feleke
the dialects and the grammatical conditions showed that, in the Eastern Oromo dialect
context, a significantly higher number of sentences containing the noun–adjective
gender agreement of the Eastern dialect was produced compared with the sentences
containing the neutralized noun–adjective gender agreement of the Western dialect;
z=3.361,p< 0.01. Likewise, a significantly higher number of sentences containing the
noun–interrogative pronoun gender agreement of the Eastern dialect was produced as
compared to the sentences containing the neutralized noun–interrogative pronoun
gender agreement of the Western dialect; z=3.317,p< 0.01. In the Western Oromo
dialect context, a significantly higher number of sentences containing the neutralized
noun–adjective gender agreement of the Western dialect was produced compared
with the sentences containing the noun–adjective gender agreement of the Eastern
dialect; z=3.424,p< 0.001. Similarly, a significantly higher number of sentences
containing the neutralized noun–interrogative pronoun gender agreement of the
Western dialect was produced compared with the sentences containing the noun–
interrogative pronoun gender agreement of the Eastern dialect; z= 2.700, p<0.05.
Figure 2 indicates some tendency of dialect mixing. For instance, although the number
of gender-neutral sentences produced in the Western dialect context was higher than
that of those produced in the Eastern dialect context, a significant number of gender-
neutral sentences was produced in the Eastern dialect context. Moreover, the figure
Figure 2: Grammatical sentences produced in the Eastern and Western dialect contexts.
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 15
shows that the cross-dialectal influence is bi-directional; both Western-to-Eastern and
Eastern-to-Western cross-dialectal influences exist.
4.1.3 Conclusions
We have seen that Oromo bidialectal speakers produce a higher number of
grammatical gender forms of the Eastern dialect in the Eastern dialect context and
a higher number of grammatical gender forms of the Western dialect in the
Western dialect context. Therefore, Oromo bidialectal speakers can adjust their
choice of grammar based on the demands of the context of conversation. The
results are consistent with those of previous studies (Kubota et al. 2023; Kupisch
and Klaschik 2017; Lundquist et al. 2020; Lundquist and Vangsnes 2018) that argued
that bidialectal speakers have independent grammatical representations.
Furthermore, in both dialect contexts, there is a high degree of cross-dialectal
influence that implies that cross-dialectal influence is unavoidable during dialect
comprehension and processing (also see Kupisch and Klaschik 2017). The observed
cross-dialectal influence is asymmetrical; Eastern-to-Western influence is higher
than Western-to-Eastern influence.
4.2 Experiment II: forced choice task
4.2.1 Task
In the forced choice task, the participants were provided with a pair of sentences, one
containing the feminine gender of the Eastern dialect and the other the neutralized
Western dialect gender agreement. Hence, one of the two sentences was grammat-
ical according to the Eastern dialect, and the other was grammatical according to the
Western dialect. We investigated five gender agreement conditions: noun–adjective
gender agreement, noun–verb gender agreement, noun–interrogative pronoun
gender agreement, noun–demonstrative pronoun gender agreement, and noun–
possessive pronoun gender agreement. For each agreement condition, there were
eight pairs of sentences. In each pair, one sentence contained the gender agreement
of the Eastern dialect and the other the gender agreement of the Western dialect.
Among the eight pairs of sentences, four pairs contained animate nouns, and the
remaining four contained inanimate nouns. In each pair of the sentences, the
animate or the inanimate nouns had one of the four word-final declension class
markers: /e/, /i/, /o/ and /u/. In total, there were eighty (forty pairs) target sentences
(five gender agreements * two dialects * two animacy * four declension classes). All
16 Feleke
the nouns in the experiment were feminine in the Eastern dialect and gender-neutral
in the Western Oromo dialect, as illustrated in (5).
(5) Q. Choose the correct sentence of the Oromo dialect that you speak in your
vicinity.
a. Saree k-ami deeme? (Western dialect)
b. Saree t-ami deeme? (Eastern dialect)
‘Which dog rushed away?’
The first sentence (5a) contains the interrogative pronoun of the Western dialect, and
the second sentence (5b) contains the interrogative pronoun of the Eastern dialect. In
the experiment, the order of the Eastern and Western dialect sentences was coun-
terbalanced across the grammatical conditions. We constructed the sentences using
words of the Eastern dialect (Eastern dialect modality), except for the target items
(e.g., k-ami in [5a]) that carry the Western dialect grammatical gender form.
Furthermore, there were ten pairs of filler sentences. Each pair of sentences
comprised grammatical and ungrammatical noun–verb word orders. All the nouns
in the filler sentences were plural; therefore, there was no overtly marked gender
agreement in the filler sentences. All (experimental and filler) pairs of sentences
were randomly presented in a multiple-choice format.
4.2.2 Participants
We recruited the participants from elementary and secondary schools in Hirna. The
target participants span a wide age range. Hence, we classified them into six age
groups: Stage 1 (Grade 3 students), Stage 2 (Grade 5 students), Stage 3 (Grade 7
students), Stage 4 (Grade 9 students), Stage 5 (Grade 11 students), and Stage 6 (adults).
The adult participants were government employees who were serving in various
public sectors. All the participants were native speakers of the Eastern Oromo dialect
and were recruited by our research assistants, who themselves were teachers of
Oromo in primary and secondary schools. In total, we tested 131 participants. It
should be noted that we excluded eight participants because three of them provided
incomplete responses and the remaining five provided random responses. Table 3
presents the 123 participants who properly completed the test. Only fourteen third
graders took part in the task because we tested them individually, and we found
testing more children difficult due to the time constraints. The research assistants
assisted (with reading) the third graders as they were not fluent readers. Prior to the
experiment, the participants practiced on three warm-up items of different gram-
matical domains to ensure that they understood what to do. We administered the
tests in quiet classrooms in the schools of the participants, except for the adults, who
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 17
were tested in a temporary small-sized test room.
5
Because of the size of the test
room, we administered the test to five adult participants at a time. We instructed the
participants to choose the correct sentences of the Eastern dialect. The participants
provided their answers using a pen or a pencil. We coded the participants’responses
as “1”if they chose a sentence containing the gender agreement of the Eastern dialect
and as “0”if otherwise. There were a few instances when the participants felt that
both options were correct. In such cases, we instructed them to choose the best one,
depending on their knowledge of the Oromo dialect spoken in their vicinity.
We used a background questionnaire as an additional tool to collect data per-
taining to the participants’language history. In the questionnaire, the variables of
interest were the participants’education level, home language situation, second
language, and duration of exposure to the Eastern and Western dialects. The par-
ticipants filled the questionnaire before the experiment. The participants were
native speakers of the Eastern dialect and spent their entire lives in an area where
the Eastern dialect is spoken.
4.2.3 Results
We counted the number of the Eastern and Western Oromo dialect sentences chosen
by the participants. As Table 4 shows, a higher number of sentences of the Eastern
dialect were chosen across the stages and the agreement conditions. To test whether
this difference was statistically significant, we ran a generalized linear model
(Poisson family) in R (version 3.2.3). We predicted the influences of the grammatical
conditions (noun–interrogative pronoun gender agreement, noun–verb gender
agreement, noun–adjective gender agreement, and noun–relative pronoun gender
agreement), stages (Stages 1–6), and dialects (Eastern and Western) on the
Table :Participants.
No Grades Stages Number Age (mean) Sex
Grade – ()F=M=
Grade – ()F=M=
Grade – ()F=M=
Grade – ()F=M=
Grade – ()F=M=
Adults – ()F=M=
Total F= M=
5We used the office of one of our colleagues in Hirna.
18 Feleke
Table :Selected number of sentences across the stages, conditions, and dialects.
Cond. Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage
Eastern Western Eastern Western Eastern Western Eastern Western Eastern Western Eastern Western
N-Adj
N-DEM
N-INT
N-POSS
N-V
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 19
participants’response accuracy. We dummy coded the categorical variables, namely,
for the grammatical conditions, noun–adjective gender agreement served as a
reference level; for the stages, Stage 1 was a reference level; and for the dialect
conditions, the Eastern dialect was a reference level.
We found a significant effect of the dialects (see Figure 3); the participants
selected a higher number of the Eastern dialect sentences than the Western dialect
sentences (B=−0.79[−1.03, −0.55], p< 0.001). There was also a significant effect of
conditions; the participants were less accurate when it came to the sentences con-
taining noun–interrogative pronoun gender agreement compared to the baseline
sentences containing noun–adjective gender agreement (B=−0.17[−0.27, −0.06],
p< 0.001). Moreover, we found a significant interaction between the dialects and the
grammatical conditions; among the selected Eastern Oromo dialect sentences, the
number of sentences containing noun–adjective gender agreement was higher than
that of those containing noun–interrogative pronoun gender agreement; z = 3.171,
p< 0.05. In addition, the number of sentences containing noun–demonstrative
pronoun gender agreement was higher than the number of sentences containing
noun–interrogative pronoun gender agreement; z = 3.271, p< 0.01. Among the
selected Western Oromo dialect sentences, the number of sentences containing
noun–interrogative pronoun gender agreement was marginally higher than that of
those containing noun–verb gender agreement; z = 2.561, p= 0.07. Furthermore, the
number of sentences containing noun–possessive pronoun gender agreement was
Figure 3: Selected sentences of the Eastern and Western dialects.
20 Feleke
marginally higher than the number of sentences containing noun–verb gender
agreements; z = 2.498, p= 0.09.
Moreover, there was a significant effect noted for stages (see Figure 4). Overall,
the number of sentences selected during Stage 3 was significantly higher than the
number of sentences selected during Stage 1 (the baseline) (B = 0.13[0.01, 0.25],
p< 0.05). The number of sentences selected during Stage 4 was marginally fewer than
the number of sentences selected during Stage 1 (B = −0.11[−0.24, 0.02], p= 0.088). No
other statistically significant differences were noted for the stages.
There was also a significant interaction between the dialects and the stages,
i.e., during Stage 2, the number of the selected Western dialect sentences was fewer
than the number of the selected Eastern dialect sentences (B=−0.41[−0.66, −0.17],
p< 0.001). The same is true during Stage 3 (B=−0.50[−0.75, −0.24], p< 0.001), Stage 4
(B= 0.20[−0.03, 0.43], p= 0.09), and Stage 6 (B=−0.34[−0.60, −0.08], p< 0.01). In
addition, between-stage pairwise HSD Tukey comparisons showed that the number
of the Eastern dialect sentences chosen during Stage 2 was higher than that of the
Eastern dialect sentences chosen during Stage 4; z= 3.542, p< 0.01. The number of the
Eastern dialect sentences chosen during Stage 3 was significantly higher compared to
the number of sentences chosen during Stage 4; z= 4.381, p< 0.0001. The number of
the Eastern dialect sentences chosen during Stage 3 was higher than the number of
the Eastern dialect sentences chosen during Stage 5; z= 3.009, p< 0.05. The number of
the Eastern dialect sentences chosen during Stage 6 was marginally higher than the
number of the Eastern dialect sentences chosen during Stage 4; z= 2.750, p= 0.06.
Figure 4: Interaction between stages and dialects.
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 21
Furthermore, the number of the Western dialect sentences chosen during Stage 1
was significantly higher than that of those chosen during Stage 2; z= 3.032, p< 0.05.
The number of the Western dialect sentences chosen during Stage 1 was higher than
the number of the Western dialect sentences chosen during Stage 3; z= 3.227, p< 0.05.
The number of the Western dialect sentences chosen during Stage 4 was significantly
higher compared to the number of the Western dialect sentences chosen during
Stage 2; z= 4.642, p< 0.0001. The number of the Western dialect sentences chosen
during Stage 5 was significantly higher than the number of sentences chosen during
Stage 2; z= 2.855, p< 0.05. The number of the Western dialect sentences chosen during
Stage 4 was higher compared to the number of the Western dialect sentences chosen
during Stage 3; z= 4.752, p< 0.0001. The number of the Western dialect sentences
chosen during Stage 4 was higher than that of those chosen during Stage 6; z= 3.888,
p< 0.001. There was no significant interaction between the stages, agreements, and
dialects (see Appendix A1 for the plots). This indicates that the influence of a
particular grammatical form is consistent across the developmental stages. Figure 5
shows the accuracy of the participants across the stages and dialects.
Figure 5 shows that in the first three stages (Stages 1–3), the influence of the
grammatical gender of the Western dialect on the comprehension of the grammat-
ical gender of the Eastern Oromo dialect has continued to decline, regardless of an
increased exposure to the Western dialect (see Appendix A2 for the individual dif-
ferences). Therefore, this phase can be characterized as a stabilization phase, a phase
Figure 5: Rise and fall of the influence of the Western dialect.
22 Feleke
in which the gender agreement of the Western dialect builds its momentum. A sharp
increase in preference for the gender agreement of the Western dialect was observed
during Stage 4. During this stage, the gender system of the Western dialect exerts the
maximum influence; hence, it is called the exertion phase. Subsequently, there is the
restoration phase (Stages 5 and 6), in which the gender system of the Western dialect
reduces its influence. Figure 5 summarizes the rise and fall in the influence of the
Western Oromo dialect. The upraising amplitude of the exertion phase (the orange
line) shows the relatively stronger influence of the gender system of the Western
Oromo dialect.
4.2.4 Conclusions
Compared with the selected sentences of the Western dialect, a significantly higher
number of sentences of the Eastern dialect were chosen across the developmental
stages. This indicates that the bidialectal Oromo speakers can separate the grammar
of their native dialect from the grammar of a non-native dialect. However, there
was also a considerable amount of mixing across the stages, showing that dialect
separation is not as discrete as language separation. Moreover, distinguishing the
noun–interrogative pronoun gender agreement of the Eastern dialect is more
difficult than distinguishing the other grammatical forms. This finding implies that a
specific property of a grammatical form can affect dialect separation and cross-
dialectal influence. Finally, there are clear patterns of the influence of the Western
Oromo dialect across the developmental stages. A strong influence is observed
during the exertion phase. We assume that this influence reflects the increased
duration of the participants’exposure to the non-native Western dialect.
5 General discussion
In Section 3, we formulated four research questions. In this section, we answer these
questions based on the results reported in Section 4.
5.1 Dialect separation and cross-dialectal influence
The results of Experiment I confirm that the bidialectal Oromo speakers can
distinguish the grammatical gender forms of the Eastern dialect from those of the
Western dialect. The bidialectal speakers produce a higher number of the Eastern
dialect grammatical gender forms (noun–adjective and noun–interrogative pronoun
agreements) in the Eastern dialect context. Likewise, in the Western dialect context,
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 23
the speakers produce a higher number of the grammatical gender forms of the
Western dialect, indicating that they have an implicit knowledge of the grammatical
gender differences between the native and non-native Oromo dialects. Similarly, the
results obtained from Experiment II indicate that the bidialectal speakers recognize
the sentences of the native Eastern dialect in the written mode. The ability to
distinguish the grammar of a native dialect from that of a non-native dialect is
demonstrated across the developmental stages and the grammatical conditions. The
results of the two experiments together indicate that the Oromo bidialectal speakers
can distinguish the grammar of their native dialect from that of a non-native dialect,
both in production and in comprehension.
In this regard, our findings align with the results previously reported by
Kupisch and Klaschik (2017), who found that Veneto-Italian dialect-speaking children
produced the Italian grammatical gender forms in an Italian experiment and the
Venetan grammatical gender forms in a Veneto dialect experiment. Our results
are also consistent with those of Kubota et al. (2023), Lundquist et al. (2020), and
Lundquist and Vangsnes (2018), who reported an independent representation of the
grammars of bidialectal speakers. In general, our results corroborate the two-system
representation of bidialectal grammars advocated by proponents of universal bilin-
gualism (see Amaral and Roeper 2014; Eide and Åfarli 2020; Garcia et al. 2022; Roeper
1999, 2016), not the view ofthe one-system representation of bidialectal grammars held
in many other studies (e.g., Cheshire and Stein 1997; Hazen 2001; Henry 2005; Hudson
1996; Labov 1998; Leivada et al. 2017; Wei 2000). Based on the processing-based pa-
rameters proposed by Lundquist and Vangsnes (2018), we can argue that the Oromo
bidialectal speakers are “true bidialectals”; they can adjust their preference of
grammatical forms in accordance with the needs of a given dialect context.
We have also seen that Oromo bidialectal speakers usually mix the grammars of
their dialects, even in a context that clearly cues the activation of one of the dialects.
We found dialect mixing both in spoken and written modes. This mixing is the
probable outcome of a parallel activation of the grammars of the bidialectal speakers
(see Dahlman and Kupisch 2016; Kambanaros et al. 2013; Lundquist et al. 2020;
Taxitari et al. 2015). Presumably, other factors such as between-dialect structural
similarities that make dialect mixing unavoidable are also involved (see Kupisch and
Klaschik 2017). Generally, the boundary between the grammars of bidialectal
speakers is not as clear as the boundary observed in the grammars of bilingual
speakers. This could be due to the phonological, lexical, and grammatical overlap
between the dialects. Several studies report that structural similarities exacerbate a
competition between grammatical representations (e.g., Kupisch and Klaschik 2017;
Lundquist and Vangsnes 2018; Oschwald et al. 2018).
In addition, there are patterns that characterize the influence of the Western
Oromo dialect on the comprehension of the grammar of the Eastern Oromo dialect.
24 Feleke
These patterns reveal three phases of influence of the Western Oromo dialect: sta-
bilization,exertion, and restoration. The Western dialect starts building its influence
in the stabilization phase. However, during this phase, the influence is presumably
not very strong, as the Western dialect is still in the process of being acquired. The
strongest influence of the gender system of the Western dialect is observed during
the exertion phase. The substantial influence during the exertion phase is a mani-
festation of a cumulative effect of several years of exposure to the Western dialect.
We assume that a prolonged exposure to the Western Oromo dialect inhibits the
activation of the gender system of the Eastern dialect (see Clopper 2014 for a similar
argument). The strong influence during the exertion phase is normalized during the
restoration phase. This adjustment is likely the consequence of a strong social
integration of the adult bidialectal speakers. Adult Oromo bidialectal speakers have
stronger social ties with the outside-school communities that are nondialectal
speakers of the Eastern dialect. In general, there is a strong connection between
cross-dialectal influence and the duration of exposure to the Western dialect. This
implies that cross-dialectal influence is a dynamic process, with its impact changing
based on the duration and magnitude of exposure (see Hauser-Grüdl et al. 2010;
Hendrikx et al. 2019).
It is not only exposure that affects cross-dialectal influence. We have seen that
distinguishing the noun–interrogative pronoun gender agreement of the Eastern
Oromo dialect from that of the Western dialect is relatively difficult. Across
the developmental stages, a high degree of mixing is associated with the noun–
interrogative pronoun gender agreement, both in written and spoken modes. This
implies that a specific attribute of a grammatical form can modulate dialect sep-
aration and cross-dialectal influence. Moreover, the cross-dialectal influence is
more acute in the spoken mode than in the written mode. For instance, there is
more mixing of noun–adjective gender agreement in the production experiment
than in the comprehension experiment. This indicates that modality also moder-
ates cross-dialectal influence. Lundquist et al. (2020) reported a similar finding
based on their investigation of Norwegian dialect speakers. A plausible explanation
for the modality effect can be that speaking involves an unconscious processing
that is unlike reading, which requires a conscious processing. Previous studies
show that conscious processing is less susceptible to cross-linguistic influence
compared with unconscious processing (Elvin and Escudero 2019; Lundquist et al.
2020).
Some previous studies also argue that metalinguistic knowledge constrains di-
alect separation and cross-dialectal influence (see Leivada et al. 2017; Terry 2014). We
do not believe that metalinguistic knowledge plays a role in Oromo dialect separation
since we found cross-dialectal influence across developmental stages, including
among third graders who might not have acquired metalinguistic knowledge. A
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 25
reasonably smaller mixing effect observed in the comprehension experiment could
be related to the speakers’awareness of the dialects. In Experiment II, we explicitly
instructed the participants to choose sentences of their native dialect. This might
have enhanced their awareness. Previous studies indicate that speakers’awareness
of their native and non-native dialects can enhance their ability to distinguish di-
alects (Johnson et al. 2017; Ruch 2018; Schmidt 2022).
5.2 Interactive dialect separation model
We have seen that dialect separation and cross-dialectal influence can be con-
strained by modality, the duration of an individual’s exposure to a non-native dialect,
and specific attributes of a grammatical form. The written mode maximizes the
speakers’ability to distinguish their native dialect from a non-native dialect.
Furthermore, an extensive exposure to a non-native dialect favors the selection of a
non-native dialect. Moreover, within-dialect dynamics, such as the neutralization of
grammatical forms in a native dialect, facilitate the selection of non-native dialects
(see Lohndal and Westergaard 2021). Studies report that several other factors
constrain cross-dialectal influence. For example, formal instruction in a non-native
dialect enables the selection of the grammar associated with that non-native dialect
(Henry 2005; Leivada et al. 2017). Moreover, modality (Lundquist et al. 2020), the
regular use of both native and non-native dialects (Alrwaita 2021; Alrwaita et al. 2022,
2023a, 2023b), standardization (Feldman et al. 1977; Henry 2005; Leivada et al. 2017),
metalinguistic knowledge (Henry 2005; Leivada et al. 2017; Terry 2014), linguistic
distance between the dialects (Feleke 2023; Feleke et al. 2020; Henry 2005), contexts in
which the dialects are used (Alrwaita et al. 2022, 2023a, 2023b), inhibitory control
(Leivada et al. 2017), and a clear boundary between native and non-native dialects
(Henry 2005) enhance dialect separation. The absence of or limited access to these
factors leads to dialect mixing or cross-dialectal influence.
Taken together, these studies imply that the cognitive mechanisms that under-
pin dialect selection and cross-dialectal influence interact with several linguistic and
non-linguistic variables. Given this evidence, we propose the IDSM. This model as-
sumes that dialect separation and cross-dialectal influence are the outcomes of the
interplay between various linguistic, cognitive, and sociolinguistic factors. Figure 6
shows that every bidialectal speaker is susceptible to at least some of these factors,
but the impact of the factors can be either positive or negative, depending on the
magnitude of exposure to the factors. For instance, exposure to contexts in which the
dialects are equally used attenuates dialect separation and reduces cross-dialectal
influence, but less exposure to such contexts suppresses dialect separation and en-
hances cross-dialectal influence. The model recognizes that dialect separation and
26 Feleke
cross-dialectal influence are not merely linguistic phenomena; rather, they are the
products of complex interactions among various stakeholders.
Figure 6 also shows that cross-dialectal influence and dialect separation are two
extremes of the same cognitive process. In other words, the failure to distinguish
the grammar of one dialect from the grammar of another dialect results in cross-
dialectal influence. The numbers in the figure represent the magnitude of cross-
dialectal influence and dialect separation that a bidialectal speaker may encounter.
The colors indicate the strength of the cross-dialectal influence and dialect separa-
tion. The figure further indicates that both dialect separation and cross-dialectal
influence cannot be achieved 100 percent; there is always a certain degree of mixing
that is triggered by the similarity between dialects and several other factors. Given
that bidialectal speakers have a two-system representation of grammars, 100 percent
mixing is also impossible. Hence, the argument concerning the extent to which
bidialectal speakers distinguish the grammar of their native dialect from that of a
non-native dialect should take the involvement of these factors into account. Ac-
cording to the IDSM, bidialectal speakers effectively differentiate their native dialect
from a non-native dialect whenever these factors contribute positively. Namely, the
degree to which bidialectal speakers distinguish the grammar of their dialects
Figure 6: Relationship between cross-dialectal influence, dialect separation, and major factors. Red
represents the absence of cross-dialectal influence; green shows the highest degree of cross-dialectal
influence and mixing effects. Yellow indicates moderate influence and mixing.
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 27
depends on the degree to which these factors facilitate the separation process. This
makes dialect separation and cross-dialectal influence different from distinguishing
one language from another.
The IDSM has an important theoretical implication: that every bidialectal
speaker is different as every dialect context is different. For example, the diglossic
contexts in most Arabic-speaking countries differ from the dialect contexts in
Ethiopia or in Norway. In the latter, both native and non-native dialects enjoy equal
social status, and both dialects are used in spoken and written modes. We suspect
that discrepancies in the psycholinguistics literature regarding the representation
of bidialectal grammars may be related to this ecological heterogeneity. Bidialectal
speakers who grow up in a dialect context that favors a frequent switch between
dialects may have a grammatical representation that aligns with the representa-
tion of the grammars of bilingual speakers. Those who grow up in the context
that disallows a between-dialect switch may have a co-dependent grammatical
representation that is consistent with the representation of monolingual grammars
(see Alrwaita et al. 2022, 2023a, 2023b). Generally, it is the symbiotic relationship
between the dialects and the dialects’ecosystem that determines the outcome.
There is no one-size-fits-all principle; each bidialectal speaker grows up in a
different dialect ecology that dictates the dynamics in the dialects and in the
speakers’cognitive representations.
6 Conclusions
Bidialectal speakers of the Eastern and Western Oromo dialects can distinguish the
grammar of their native dialect from that of the non-native dialect. This implies the
presence of a two-system representation of grammars of the bidialectal speakers.
The data obtained from the Oromo bidialectal speakers also show that dialect sep-
aration cannot be perfectly categorical; there is always the possibility of dialect
mixing, which emerges from a strong lexical and grammatical overlap and the
subsequent parallel activation of competing grammatical and lexical representa-
tions. The lexical and grammatical overlap, combined with other factors, exacerbates
the influence between native and non-native dialects. It appears that a 100 percent
separation between two dialects is unachievable, differentiating cross-dialectal in-
fluence from cross-linguistic influence.
Dialect separation and cross-dialectal influence can also be constrained
by modalities. Cross-dialectal influence is stronger in speaking than in writing.
This is conceivably because speaking is an unconscious process and requires less
re-assessment than reading, which is a conscious process. Moreover, dialect sep-
aration and cross-dialectal influences can be influencedbyaspecificpropertyofa
28 Feleke
grammatical gender form. Grammatical forms that are on the state of change are
more difficult to distinguish than those that are well established in native and non-
native dialects. Finally, distinguishing the grammar of a native dialect from that of
a non-native dialect can be constrained by sociolinguistic and cognitive factors.
Because each dialect context is distinctively affected by these factors, the ability to
distinguish one dialect from another can differ from speaker to speaker. Hence, we
propose the IDSM, which posits that dialect selection and cross-dialectal influence
are the outcomes of complex interactions among various variables.
Research funding: This project has been supported by AcqVa Aurora Research
Center at UiT, The Arctic University of Norway, grant number 2062165.
Data availability statement: Supplemental material and data underlying this
analysis can be viewed at https://osf.io/a6xbd/?view_only=96692d9435be40
d0aca3c43834b05d54.
Appendix A
Appendix 1
Interaction between conditions and stages (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Condition and stage interactions.
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 29
Figure 10: Responses of Grade 7 students.
Figure 11: Responses of Grade 9 students.
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 31
Figure 12: Responses of Grade 11 students.
Figure 13: Responses of adult participants.
32 Feleke
References
Alrwaita, Najila. 2021. The effects of diglossia on cognition: Evidence from executive functions. University of
Reading Doctoral dissertation.
Alrwaita, Najila, Carmel Houston-Price & Christos Pliatsikas. 2023a. The effects of using two varieties of
one language on cognition: Evidence from bidialectalism and diglossia. Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism 13(6). 830–853.
Alrwaita, Najila, Carmel Houston-Price, Lotte Meteyard, Tom Voits & Chirstose Pliatsikas. 2023b. Executive
functions are modulated by the context of dual language use: Diglossic, bilingual and monolingual
older adults. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 27(1). 1–26.
Alrwaita, Najila, Lotte Meteyard, Carmel Houston-Price & Christos Pliatsikas. 2022. Is there an effect of
diglossia on executive functions? An investigation among adult diglossic speakers of Arabic.
Languages 7(4). 2–28.
Amaral, Luiz & Tom Roeper. 2014. Multiple grammars and second language representation. Second
Language Research 30(1). 3–36.
Bisang, Walter. 2006. Linguistic areas, language contact and typology: Some implications from the case of
Ethiopia as a linguistic area. In Matras Yaron, April McMahon & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Linguistic areas,
75–98. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blanco-Elorrieta, Esti & Alfonso Caramazza. 2021. A common selection mechanism at each linguistic level
in bilingual and monolingual language production. Cognition 213(12). 1–15.
Blazek, Vaclav. 2010. Glottochronological classification of Oromo dialects. Lingua Posnaniensis 52(2). 27–42.
Blumenfeld, Henrike & Viorica Marian. 2013. Parallel language activation and cognitive control during
spoken word recognition in bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25(5). 547–567.
Busterud, Guro, Terje Lohndal, Yulia Rodina & Marit Westergaard. 2019. The loss of feminine gender in
Norwegian: A dialect comparison. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 22(2). 141–167.
Chambers, Jack. 1992. Dialect acquisition. Language 68(4). 673–705.
Chambers, Jack & Peter Trudgill. 1998. Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cheshire, Jenny & Dieter Stein. 1997. The syntax of spoken language. In Jenny Cheshire & Dieter Stein
(eds.), Taming the vernacular: From dialect to written standard language,1–12. London & New York:
Routledge.
Clamons, Cynthia. 1992. Gender in Oromo. University of Minnesota PhD dissertation.
Clamons, Cynthia. 1993. Gender assignment in Oromo. In Mushira Eid & Gregory Iverson (eds.), Principles
and prediction: The analysis of natural language, 269–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clopper, Cynthia. 2014. Sound changes in the individual: Effects of exposure on cross-dialect speech
processing. Laboratory Phonology 5(1). 69–90.
Comrie, Bernard. 1999. Grammatical gender systems: A linguist’s assessment. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research 28(5). 457–466.
Corbett, Greville. 1982. Gender in Russian: An account of gender specification and its relationship to
declension. Russian Linguistics 6(2). 197–232.
Corbett, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cornips, Leonie & Cecilia Poletto. 2005. On standardizing syntactic elicitation techniques. Lingua 115(7).
939–957.
Curtin, Melissa. 2020. Dialect: Social class. In Stanlaw James (ed.), The international encyclopedia of linguistic
anthropology,1–9. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 33
Dahlman, Roberta & Tanja Kupisch. 2016. Attrition at the interfaces in bilectal acquisition (Italian/
Gallipolino). In Ermenegildo Bidise, Federica Cognola & Manuela Moroni (eds.), Theoretical
approaches to linguistic variation, 259–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Declerck, Mathieu & Neil Kirk. 2023. No evidence for a mixing benefit: A registered report of voluntary
dialect switching. PLoS One 18(5). 1–14.
Declerck, Mathieu, Elisabeth Ozbakar & Neil Kirk. 2021. Is there proactive inhibitory control during
bilingual and bidialectal language production? PLoS One 16(9). 1–16.
Eide, Kristin & Tor Åfarli. 2020. Dialects, registers and intraindividual variation: Outside the scope of
generative frameworks? Nordic Journal of Linguistics 43(3). 233–248.
Elvin, Jaydene & Paula Escudero. 2019. Cross-linguistic influence in second language speech: Implications
for learning and teaching. In Juncal Gutierrez-Mangado, María Martínez-Adrián &
Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto (eds.), Cross-linguistic influence: From empirical evidence to classroom
practice,1–20. Cham: Springer.
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2004. On the relation between gender and declension: A diachronic perspective from
Norwegian. Studies in Language 28(1). 51–82.
Feldman, Carlo, Addison Stone, James Wertsch & Michael Strizich. 1977. Standard and nonstandard dialect
competencies of Hawaiian Creole English speakers. Tesol Quarterly 11(1). 41–50.
Feleke, Tekabe Legesse. 2023. Determinants of language change in the Gurage area of Ethiopia.Journal of
World Languages 9(2). 253–288.
Feleke, Tekabe Legesse, Charlotte Gooskens & Stefan Rabanus. 2020. Mapping the dimensions of
linguistic distance: A study on South Ethiosemitic languages. Lingua 243(15). 1–31.
Feleke, Tekabe Legesse & Terje Lohndal. 2023. Gender variation across the Oromo dialects: A corpus-
based study. Studia Linguistica 77(3). 453–495.
Ferguson, Charles. 1970. The Ethiopian language area. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 8(2). 67–68.
Garcia, Felicidad, Guannan Shen, Trey Avery, Heather Green, Paula Godoy, Reem Khamis & Koren Froud.
2022. Bidialectal and monodialectal differences in morphosyntactic processing of AAE and MAE:
Evidence from ERPs and acceptability judgments. Journal of Communication Disorders 100(5). 1–15.
Gawlitzek-Maiwald, Ira & Rosemarie Tracy. 1996. Bilingual bootstrapping. Linguistics 5(34). 901–926.
Genesee, Fred. 1989. Early bilingual development: One language or two? Journal of Child Language 16(1).
161–179.
Goldrick, Mathew, Michael Putnam & Lara Schwarz. 2016. Coactivation in bilingual grammars: A
computational account of code mixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19(5). 857–876.
Hauser-Grüdl, Nicole, Lastenia Guerra, Franziska Witzmann, Estelle Leray & Natascha Müller. 2010. Cross-
linguistic influence in bilingual children: Can input frequency account for it? Lingua 120(11).
2638–2650.
Hazen, Krik. 2001. Teaching about dialects. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse.
Hendrikx, Isa, Kristel Van Goethem & Stefanie Wulff. 2019. Intensifying constructions in French-speaking
L2 learners of English and Dutch: Cross-linguistic influence and exposure effects. International
Journal of Learner Corpus Research 5(1). 63–103.
Henry, Alison. 2005. Non-standard dialects and linguistic data. Lingua 115(11). 1599–1617.
Hockett, Charles. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
Hopkins, Kelly, George Kellas & Stephan Paul. 1995. Scope of word meaning activation during sentence
processing by young and older adults. Experimental Aging Research 21(2). 123–142.
Hudson, Richard. 1996. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hundie, Mekonnen. 2002. Lexical standardization in Oromo. Addis Ababa University MA thesis.
Jäkel, Frank & Felix Wichmann. 2006. Spatial four-alternative forced-choice method is the preferred
psychophysical method for naïve observers. Journal of Vision 6(11). 1307–1322.
34 Feleke
Jankowiak, Katarzyna & Pawet Korpal. 2018. On modality effects in bilingual emotional language
processing: Evidence from galvanic skin response. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 47(1). 663–677.
Johannessen, Bondi & Ida Larsson. 2018. Stability and change in grammatical gender: Pronouns in
heritage Scandinavian. Journal of Language Contact 11(3). 441–480.
Johnson, Lakeisha, Nicole Terry, Carol McDonald Connor & Shurita Thomas-Tate. 2017. The effects of
dialect awareness instruction on nonmainstream American English speakers. Reading and Writing
30(1). 2009–2038.
Kambanaros, Maria, Kleanthes Grohmann & Michalis Michaelides. 2013. Lexical retrieval for nouns and
verbs in typically developing bilectal children. First Language 33(2). 182–199.
Kebede, Hordofa. 2009. Towards the genetic classification of the Afaan Oromoo dialects. University of Oslo
PhD dissertation.
Kirk, Neil, Matheiu Declerck, Ryan Kemp & Kempe Vera. 2022. Language control in regional dialect
speakers: Monolingual by name, bilingual by nature? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 25(3).
511–520.
Kroll, Judith, Susan Bobb & Noriko Hoshino. 2014. Two languages in mind: Bilingualism as a tool to
investigate language, cognition, and the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23(3).
159–163.
Kubota, Maki, Jorge Alonso, Merete Anderssen, Isabel Jensen, Alicia Luque, Sergio Soares,
Yanina Prystauka, Øystein Vangsnes, Jade Sandstedt & Jason Rothman. 2023. Bilectal exposure
modulates neural signatures to conflicting grammatical properties: Norway as a natural laboratory.
Language Learning 73(4). 1–32.
Kupisch, Tanja. 2008. Dominance, mixing and cross-linguistic influence. In Pedro Guijarro, John Clibbens &
Maria Larranaga (eds.), First language acquisition of morphology and syntax: Perspectives across
languages and learners, 209–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kupisch, Tanja & Ewgenia Klaschik. 2017. Cross-lectal influence and gender marking in bilectal Venetan-
Italian acquisition. In Elma Blom, Leonie Cornips & Jeannette Schaeffer (eds.), Cross-linguistic
influence in bilingualism: In honor of Aafke Hulk, 127–152. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kürschner, Sebastian & Damaris Nübling. 2011. The interaction of gender and declension in Germanic
languages. Folia Linguistics 45(2). 355–388.
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, William. 1998. Co-existent systems in African American English. In Salikoko Mufwene,
John Rickford, Guy Bailey & John Baugh (eds.), African American English, 110–153. London: Routledge.
Lanwermeyer, Manuela, Karen Henrich, Maria Rocholl, Hanni Schnell, Alexander Werth, Joachim Herrgen
& Jurgen Schmidt. 2016. Dialect variation influences the phonological and lexical-semantic word
processing in sentences: Electrophysiological evidence from a cross-dialectal comprehension study.
Frontiers in Psychology 739(7). 1–18.
Leivada, Evelina, Elena Papadopoulou, Maria Kambanaros & Kleathes Grohmann. 2017. The influence of
bilectalism and non-standardization on the perception of native grammatical variants. Frontiers in
Psychology 205(8). 1–11.
Leung, Yan-Kit. 2006. Full transfer vs. partial transfer in L2 and L3 acquisition. In Roumiyana Slabakova,
Silvina Montrul & Philippe Prevost (eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development: In honor of Lydia White,
157–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Liu, Huanhuan, Lijuan Liang, Li Zhang, Yao Lu & Baoguo Chen. 2017. Modulatory role of inhibition during
language switching: Evidence from evoked and induced oscillatory activity. International Journal of
Bilingualism 21(1). 57–80.
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 35
Lohndal, Terje & Marit Westergaard. 2021. Grammatical gender: Acquisition, attrition, and change. Journal
of German Linguistics 33(1). 95–121.
Lundquist, Bjorn & Øystein Vangsnes. 2018. Language separation in bidialectal speakers: Evidence from
eye tracking. Frontiers in Psychology 1394(9). 1–18.
Lundquist, Bjorn, Maud Westendorp & Bror-Magnus Strand. 2020. Code-switching alone cannot explain
intraspeaker syntactic variability: Evidence from a spoken elicitation experiment. Nordic Journal of
Linguistics 43(3). 249–287.
Marian, Viorica & Michael Spivey. 2003. Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within-
and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 6(2). 97–115.
Melinger, Alissa. 2018. Distinguishing languages from dialects: A litmus test using the picture-word
interference task. Cognition 172(11). 73–88.
Melinger, Alissa. 2021. Do elevators compete with lifts? Selecting dialect alternatives. Cognition 206(11).
1–13.
Mous, Maarten. 2008. Number as an exponent of gender in Cushitic. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Erin Shay
(eds.), Interaction of morphology and syntax: Case studies in Afroasiatic, 137–160. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Negesse, Feda. 2015. Classification of Oromo dialects: A computational approach. International Journal of
Computational Linguistics 6(1). 1–10.
Nycz, Jennifer. 2015. Second dialect acquisition: A sociophonetic perspective. Language and Linguistics
Compass 9(11). 469–482.
Oschwald, Jessica, Alisa Schättin, Claudia Von Bastian & Alessandra Souza. 2018. Bidialectalism and
bilingualism: Exploring the role of language similarity as a link between linguistic ability and
executive control. Frontiers in Psychology 1997(9). 1–22.
Owens, Jonathan. 1985. A grammar of Harar Oromo (Northeastern Ethiopia). Hamburg: Buske.
Pavlov, Goran, Dexin Shi, Alberto Maydeu-Olivares & Amanda Fairchild. 2021. Item desirability matching in
forced-choice test construction. Personality and Individual Differences 183(15). 1–10.
Rodina, Yulia & Marit Westergaard. 2015. Grammatical gender in Norwegian: Language acquisition and
language change. Journal of German Linguistics 27(2). 145–187.
Rodina, Yulia & Marit Westergaard. 2021. Grammatical gender and declension class in language change: A
study of the loss of feminine gender in Norwegian. Journal of German Linguistics 33(3). 235–263.
Roeper, Thomas. 1999. Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism Language and Cognition 2(3). 169–186.
Roeper, Thomas. 2016. Multiple grammars and the logic of learnability in second language acquisition.
Frontiers in Psychology 14(7). 1–14.
Ruch, Hanna. 2018. The role of acoustic distance and sociolinguistic knowledge in dialect identification.
Frontiers in Psychology 818(9). 1–15.
Schmidt, Lauren. 2022. Second language development of dialect awareness in Spanish. Hispania 105(2).
267–284.
Siegel, Jeff. 2010. Second dialect acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stadthagen-González, Hans, Luis Lopez, Carmen Couto & Alejandro Parraga. 2018. Using two-alternative
forced choice tasks and Thurstone’s law of comparative judgments for code-switching research.
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8(1). 67–97.
Steriopolo, Olga. 2017. Nominalizing evaluative suffixes in Russian: The interaction of declension class,
gender, and animacy. Poljarnyj Vestnik: Norwegian Journal of Slavic Studies 20(1). 18–44.
Taxitari, Loukia, Maria Kambanaros & Kleanthes Grohmann. 2015. Investigating early language
development in a bilectal context. Paper presented at international symposium on monolingual and
bilingual speech, Cyprus University of Technology, 7–10 September.
36 Feleke
Terry, Nicole. 2014. Dialect variation and phonological knowledge: Phonological representations and
metalinguistic awareness among beginning readers who speak nonmainstream American English.
Applied Psycholinguistics 35(1). 155–176.
Trudgill, Peter. 2003. A glossary of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wei, Li. 2000. Dimensions of bilingualism. In Wei Li (ed.), The bilingualism reader,3–22. London: Routledge.
Dialect separation and crosslectal influence 37
