A Low Dimensionality Representationfor Language Variety IdentificationThe work of the first author was in the framework of ECOPORTUNITY IPT-2012-1220-430000. The work of the last two authors was in the framework of the SomEMBED MINECO TIN2015-71147-C2-1-P research project. This work has been also supported by the SomEMBED TIN2015-71147-C2-1-P MINECO research project and by the Generalitat Valenciana under the grant ALMAPATER (PrometeoII/2014/030)
Table 7: Confusion matrix of the 5-class classification.
['Variety', 'Clasified as AR', 'Clasified as CL', 'Clasified as ES', 'Clasified as MX', 'Clasified as PE']
We aim at analysing the error of LDR to better understand which varieties are the most difficult to discriminate. However, one of the highest confusions occurs from Argentinian to Spanish. Mexican and Spanish were considerably confused with Argentinian too. Finally, the highest confusion occurs from Peruvian to Chilean, although the lowest average confusion occurs with Peruvian. In general, Latin American varieties are closer to each other and it is more difficult to differentiate among them. Language evolves over time. It is logical that language varieties of nearby countries — as the Latin American ones — evolved in a more similar manner that the Spanish variety. It is also logical that even more language variety similarities are shared across neighbour countries, e.g. Chilean compared with Peruvian and Argentinian.