Mental models of linguistic varieties 279the selected variables. In our case, this chart shows to what degree the va-
rieties/languages in Table 3 are mapped onto similar visual stimuli in the
bubble task. Thus, data points which are close in Figure 3 are varieties that
were characterized largely by the same visual stimuli. Data points that are
far away from each other represent varieties that were hardly ever mapped
onto the same visual stimuli.
It is not possible to interpret the distances between all the points in Fig-
ure 3 in a straightforward manner. But the figure can be helpful for the
analysis of particular pairs or groups of varieties. For instance, it is quite
obvious that the two varieties discussed in the preceding section, Bern
Swiss German and Standard High German, are located at opposite ends of
dimension 1. This backs up the conclusion already drawn above that the
gestalt representation of these two varieties could hardly be more different.
We will come back to a possible meaningful interpretation of dimension 1
when discussing the different mappings of Bern dialect and St. Gallen di-
alect below. For the present discussion, however, it is interesting to notice
that the plot in Figure 3 shows one relatively well delimitated cluster in the
upper left quadrant. In this cluster we find eastern Swiss German dialects
(Zürich and St. Gallen) as well as the German Standard language. As the
discussion below will show, all of them are systematically associated with
spiky, chiseled, angular forms. In the lower middle part of the plot there is
cluster of varieties that is less well-defined and not so easily interpretable:
here we find the generic roofing term for all Alemannic dialects spoken in
Switzerland (Swiss German) as well as a very un-prototypical variety of
these dialects: Aargau dialect. This category is generally perceived as a
cluster of quite different local dialects in the transition zone between the
urban centers of Bern, Zürich and Basel (cf. Siebenhaar 2000) that is
carved up by some of the most important isoglosses that categorize the
Alemannic dialects. Therefore, neither in the dialectological literature nor
in folk perception do we expect there to be such a thing as a focused repre-
sentation of the Aargau dialect. It comes thus as no surprise that the bubble
choices associated with the Swiss German and the Aargau category are
distributed across several bubbles, with no stimulus reaching more than
12% of the vote of our participants. This is in sharp opposition to the
choices for Bern or St. Gallen dialect. Here, at least one stimulus gets 24%
or even 33% of the choices. This cluster at the lower middle of the plot is
not easily definable, as is the case for dimension 2 in general, but there is a
tendency to find not prototypical (Swiss German, Aargau) and geographi-
cally or genetically more distant (Suabian, Bavarian, English) and quite