Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan

6 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.378
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.897

CiteScore 2016: 0.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.309
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.158

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 56, Issue 1

Issues

Divergence in speech perception

Abby Walker
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of English, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 409 Shanks Hall, 181 Turner St NW, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jennifer Hay / Katie Drager
  • Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, 1890 East-West Road, Moore Hall 569, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Kauyumari Sanchez
  • Department of Psychology, Humboldt State University, Behavioral and Social Science Building #410, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA 95519, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-12-14 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0036

Abstract

This paper presents results from an experiment designed to test whether New Zealand listeners’ perceptual adaptation towards Australian English is mediated by their attitudes toward Australia, which we attempted to manipulate experimentally. Participants were put into one of three conditions, where they either read good facts about Australia, bad facts about Australia, or no facts about Australia (the control). Participants performed the same listening task – matching the vowel in a sentence to a vowel in a synthesized continuum – before and after reading the facts. The results indicate that participants who read the bad facts shifted their perception of kit to more Australian-like tokens relative to the control group, while the participants who read good facts shifted their perception of kit to more NZ-like tokens relative to the control group. This result shows that perceptual adaptation towards a dialect can occur in the absence of a speaker of that dialect and that these adaptations are subject to a listener’s (manipulated) affect towards the primed dialect region.

Keywords: perception; adaptation; attitudes; divergence

References

  • Babel, Molly. 2010. Dialect convergence and divergence in New Zealand English. Language in Society 39. 437–456.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Babel, Molly. 2012. Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. Journal of Phonetics 40. 177–189.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Babel, Molly & Jamie Russell. 2015. Expectations and speech intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 137(5). 2823–2833.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baumeister, Roy F., Ellen Bratslavsky, Catrin Finkenauer & Kathleen D. Vohs. 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology 5. 323–370.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bayard, Donn. 2000. New Zealand English: Origins, relationships, and prospects. Moderna Språk 94(1). 8–14.Google Scholar

  • Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13. 145–204.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bourhis, Richard Y. & Howard Giles. 1977. The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In Howard Giles (ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations, 119–135. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Bourhis, Richard Y., Howard Giles, Jacques-Phillipe Leyens & Henri Tajfel. 1979. Psycholinguistic distinctiveness: Language divergence in Belgium. In Howard Giles & Robert N. St Clair (eds.), Language and social psychology, 158–185. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Cox, Felicity & Sallyanne Palethorpe. 2008. Reversal of short front vowel raising in Australian English. Interspeech 1. 342–345.Google Scholar

  • Delvaux, Veronique & Alain Soquet. 2007. The influence of ambient speech on adult speech productions through unintentional imitation. Phonetica 64. 145–173.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dijksterhuis, Ap & Henk Aarts. 2003. On wildebeests and humans. The preferential detection of negative stimuli. Psychological Science 14. 14–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Drager, Katie. 2011. Speaker age and vowel perception. Language and Speech 54(1). 99–121.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Drager, Katie, Jennifer Hay & Abby Walker. 2010. Pronounced rivalries: Attitudes and speech production. Te Reo 53. 27–53.Google Scholar

  • Giles, Howard. 1973. Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15. 87–105.Google Scholar

  • Giles, Howard & Peter F. Powesland. 1975. Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Giles, Howard, Donald M. Taylor & Richard Y. Bourhis. 1973. Towards a theory of inter- personal accommodation through language: Some Canadian data. Language in Society 2. 177–192.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goldinger, Stephen D. 1998. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review 105. 251–279.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hay, Jennifer & Katie Drager. 2010. Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48(4). 865–892.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hay, Jennifer, Margaret Maclagan & Elizabeth Gordon. 2008. New Zealand English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hay, Jennifer, Aaron Nolan & Katie Drager. 2006a. From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review 23. 351–379.Google Scholar

  • Hay, Jennifer, Paul Warren & Katie Drager. 2006b. Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics 34(4). 458–484.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hay, Jennifer, Paul Warren & Katie Drager. 2010. Short-term exposure to one dialect affects processing of another. Language and Speech 53(4). 447–471.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, Keith, Elizabeth Strand & Mariapaola D’Imperio. 1999. Auditory visual integration of talker gender in vowel perception. Journal of Phonetics 27. 359–384.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kang, Okim & Donald Rubin. 2009. Reverse linguistic stereotyping: Measuring the effect of listener expectations on speech evaluation. Journal of Language & Social Psychology 28. 441–456.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Koops, Christian, Elizabeth Gentry & Andrew Pantos. 2008. The effect of perceived speaker age on the perception of PIN and PEN vowels in Houston, Texas. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 34(2). 93–101.Google Scholar

  • McGowan, Kevin. 2015. Social expectation improves speech perception in noise. Language and Speech 58. 502–521.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McMurray, Bob. in prep. Klattworks: A [somewhat] new systematic approach to formant-based speech synthesis for empirical research. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar

  • Natale, Michael. 1975. Convergence of mean vocal intensity in dyadic communication as a function of social desirability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32. 790–804.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Niedzielski, Nancy. 1999. The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18. 62–85.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Palma de Figueiredo, Roja. 2015. Pop-out effect of negative words in a word-grid-task. Journal of European Psychology Students 6(1). 53–61.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pardo, Jennifer S. 2006. On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119. 2382–2393.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Peeters, Guido & Janusz Czapinski. 1990. Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. European Review of Social Psychology 1. 33–60.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rubin, Donald. 1992. Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduate’s judgments of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education 33. 511–531.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Smith, Adrian. 2004. Black against gold: New Zealand-Australia sporting rivalry in the modern era. In Dilwyn Porter & Adrian Smith (eds.), Sport and national identity in the post-War World, 168–193. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Staum Casasanto, Laura. 2010. What do listeners know about sociolinguistic variation? Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 15(2). 40–49.Google Scholar

  • Strand, Elizabeth A. 1999. Uncovering the role of gender stereotypes in speech perception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18. 86–99.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Strand, Elizabeth A. & Keith Johnson. 1996. Gradient and visual speaker normalization in the perception of fricatives. In Dafydd Gibbon (ed.), Natural language processing and speech technology, 14–26. Berlin Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Sumner, Meghan & Reiko Kataoka. 2013. Effects of indexical variation on spoken word recognition. Journal of Acoustical Society of America Express Letters 134. 485–491.Google Scholar

  • Sumner, Meghan, Seung Kyung Kim, Ed King & Kevin McGowan. 2015. The socially weighted encoding of spoken words: A dual-route approach to speech perception. Frontiers in Psychology 4(1015). 1–13.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Walker, Abby. 2014. Crossing oceans with voices and ears: Second dialect acquisition and topic-based shifting in production and perception. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Weatherholtz, Kodi, Kathryn Campbell-Kibler & Florian Jaeger. 2014. Socially mediated syntactic alignment. Language Variation and Change 26(3). 387–420.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English I: An introduction. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Yu, Alan, Carissa Abrego-Collier & Morgan Sonderegger. 2013. Phonetic imitation from an individual-difference perspective: Subjective attitude, personality and “autistic” traits. PLoS ONE 8(9). e74746.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-12-14

Published in Print: 2018-01-26


Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 56, Issue 1, Pages 257–278, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0036.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in