24 Dirk Geeraerts and Dirk Speelman
features of the concept itself may constitute a significant factor in the oc-
currence of lexical heterogeneity.
In particular, the linguistic development of prototype theory (see Gee-
raerts 2006) has brought to the attention a number of non-traditional sema-
siological features that may well influence the type of onomasiological
variation that occurs across lectal boundaries. One such heterodox aspect is
vagueness of meaning: if lexical meanings cannot always be easily distin-
guished, couldn't we perhaps expect more onomasiological heterogeneity
when concepts are less clearly distinguishable? If the conceptual bounda-
ries are unclear, different lexical choices between dialects may well occur
more readily. Another such heterodox feature is conceptual salience: if
concepts are psychologically more entrenched, couldn't we perhaps expect
less onomasiological heterogeneity? If concepts are better known, highly
familiar, more habitual, uniformity across dialects may be more easily
achieved.
So, can we establish whether conceptual salience and conceptual vague-
ness significantly influence the occurrence of onomasiological heterogenei-
ty? We will study the question by means of a statistical analysis of a large-
scale database with dialectological data for the Limburgish dialects of
Dutch. We will suggest an operational definition of vagueness, salience,
and heterogeneity, and perform a multiple linear regression analysis on the
data to test the hypothesis that certain concept features do indeed enhance
onomasiological variation. In order to study the influence of concept fea-
tures from as broad a perspective as possible, we will add one more concept
feature to the analysis, viz. negative affect. Although we consider this to be
an exploratory study, the overall results will be indubitable: concept fea-
tures have a marked effect on heteronymy.
In disciplinary terms, the present study intends to contribute to three
strands of research. First, it continues the line of quantitative, usage-based
studies of onomasiological variation that was developed in our Leuven
research group in the wake of Geeraerts, Grondelaers and Bakema (1994)
and Geeraerts (1997): see Geeraerts, Grondelaers and Speelman (1999),
and compare Speelman, Grondelaers and Geeraerts (2003) for an introduc-
tion to the methodological background.
Second, it adds a topic for investigation to the field of quantitative di-
alectology, as it is illustrated by researchers like Goebl (2006), Kretz-
schmar (2006), Nerbonne and Kleiweg (2007). Within this approach, se-
mantic factors have as yet hardly been taken into consideration. With the
present study, we would like to show how relevant it can be to do so.