Austen, M. & Campbell-Kibler, C. (2022). Real-time speaker-evaluation: How useful is it, and what does it measure? Language 98(2). 108-130.

Bøegh, K. F., Schoonderbeek Hansen, I., & Svendsen, M-M. M. (2023). Tegn-et-kort-data fra Aarhus og København – en perceptuel-dialektologisk undersøgelse. I K. Boas, I. S. Hansen, T. T. Hougaard, & E. L. Overgaard (red.), 19. Møde om Udforskningen af Dansk Sprog (s. 57-73). Nordisk, Institut for Kommunikation og Kultur, Aarhus Universitet.

Grondelaers, Stefan & Tore Kristiansen. 2013. On the need to access deep evaluations when searching for the motor of standard language change. In Tore Kristiansen & Stefan Grondelaers (eds.), Language (De)standardisation in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies, 9–52. Oslo: Novus Press.

Hesson, A. & Shellgren, M. (2015). Discourse Marker Like in Real Time: Characterizing the Time Course of Sociolinguistic Impression Formation. Amercian Speech 90(2). 154-186.

Johnstone, Barbara. 2010. Introduction: Language and space: 1. Language and geographical space. In Peter Auer & Jürgen Erich Schmidt (eds.), Language and space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation. Theories and Methods, 1–18. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & co.

Kristiansen, Tore. 1991. Sprogholdninger hos folkeskolelærere, unge mennesker og personalechefer på Næstvedegnen. Danske Folkemål 33. 51–62.

Kristiansen, Tore. 2003. Language attitudes and language politics in Denmark. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 57–71.

Kristiansen, Tore. 2009a. The macro-level social meanings of late-modern Danish accents. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. 167–192.

Kristiansen, Tore. 2009a. Rigsdansk. In Henrik Hovmark, Iben Stampe Sletten & Asgerd Gudiksen (eds.), I mund og bund: 25 artikler om sprog tilegnet Inge Lise Pedersen på 70-årsdagen d. 5. juni 2009, 179–191. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.

Levon, E., Sharma, D. & Ye, Y. (2022). Dynamic sociolinguistic processing: Real-time change in judgments of speaker competence. Language 98(4), 749-774.

Maegaard, M. & P. Quist. 2020. Perception, recognition, and indexicality. Experimental investigations of variation in Northern Jutland, Southern Jutland, and in Bornholm. M. Maegaard, M. Monka, K.K. Mortensen & A.C. Stæhr (red.), Standardization as sociolinguistic change. A transversal study of three traditional dialect areas, 145–168. New York: Routledge.

Monka, M. (2020). Southern Jutland: Language Ideology as a Means to Slow Down Standardization. I M. Maegaard, M. Monka, K. K. Mortensen, & A. C. Stæhr (red.), Standardization as sociolinguistic change: A transversal study of three traditional dialect areas (s. 70-118). Routledge. Routledge Studies in Language Change.

Montgomery, C. & Moore, E. (2018). Evaluating S(c)illy voices: The effects of salience, stereotypes, and co-present language variables on real-time reactions to regional speech. Language 94(3), 629-661.

Pedersen, Inge Lise. 2003. Traditional dialects of Danish and the de-dialectalization 1900-2000. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 9–28.

Schoonderbeek Hansen, I. (2022). Findes der en særlig jysk sprogidentitet? NyS, 61, 73-125

Schoonderbeek Hansen, I., & Goldshtein, Y. (2021). Popular geopolitics and the conceptualization of linguistic norm centres. Journal of Postcolonial Linguistics, (5), 204-225.

Denmark is probably one of the most standardized countries in Europe, and dialectal differences are minimal today (Pedersen 2003, Grondelaers & Kristiansen 2013, Maegaard & Quist 2020). Several decades of experimental sociolinguistic studies have shown that young people all over Denmark prefer Copenhagen standard over other Danish varieties (Kristiansen 1991, Kristiansen 2003, Kristiansen 2009a, Pedersen 2003, Maegaard & Quist 2020). Obviously, the hegemonic status of the capital city of Copenhagen, with a long and profound history, has influenced the general attitude on which Danish variety is preferred in public contexts (Johnstone 2010, Kristiansen 2009b); this has contributed rather swiftly to language change. In these studies, the experimental battery of match guise tests and other perception tests has been similar i.e., the voice samples always contain a set of Conservative Copenhagen speech (representing Standard Danish), Modern Copenhagen speech, and a variety that represents the local area where the test is performed (Kristiansen 2009a, Grondelaers & Kristiansen 2013). In recent years researchers have questioned the methodology of the experiments, especially since the results have been so similar (Svenstrup & Thøgersen 2009, Schoonderbeek Hansen 2022); some studies have slightly altered the set up as to adapt more closely to the sociolinguistic environment the tests were held in (Maegaard & Quist 2020, Monka 2020, Schoonderbeek Hansen & Goldshtein 2021); and again others have used completely different methods to grasp language users’ perception of the linguistic landscape surrounding them (Bøegh, Hansen & Svendsen 2023). The results are extremely interesting and bring highly relevant nuance to the complexity of Denmark’s sociolinguistic landscape.

This paper describes a study that aims to further develop the experimental battery on testing adolescents’ language attitudes by using a real-time click test (Montgomery & Moore 2018), which is new in a Danish context of perceptual dialectology. The real time attitude tests allow us to understand how speech is perceived and processed while a listener associates specific linguistic forms to social categories (Hesson & Shellgren 2015; Levon et al. 2022; Austin & Campbell-Kibler 2022). The click-test is one of the ways to explore dynamic processing of linguistic forms, where one can test which linguistic features index social information while the listeners perceive them. The format also holds the opportunity for listeners to revisit every click and describe why they clicked (Montgomery & Moore 2018). The paper will present a study that investigates how language users from different areas in Denmark perceive and judge a range of linguistic features characteristic of the island of Funen in real time. Our click test will contain six different voices, recorded in two different styles (‘hyggelig’ (cozy) and serious); the test will be distributed online, expecting a few hundred respondents. Our respondents are asked, firstly, where the speaker comes from, and secondly, to click when they recognize a certain linguistic feature that indicates where the speaker comes from. For each speaker the respondents can revisit each click they made and elaborate on why they clicked. The click-method (Montgomery and Moore 2018) allows us to both test which linguistic features from Funen the respondents react on, if the range of respondents perceive them differently, and if context has an effect on which features are perceived as salient. Thus, we will both obtain quantitative and qualitative data that can help grasping the complexity of the sociolinguistic landscape of Denmark.