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

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff


CiteScore 2018: 0.95

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.381
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.841

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

How to trick respondents into revealing implicit attitudes – talk to them

Dennis R. Preston
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of English, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
  • Department of English, Michigan State University (emeritus), East Lansing, MI, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-04-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0006

Abstract

This paper outlines the cognitive processing involved in cases of language regard and shifts the focus from receivers/hearers to producers/speakers. Investigation of the latter by means of established pragmatic and discourse techniques can uncover features of language use (e.g. implicature, presupposition) that just as surely reveal implicit characteristics of a speaker’s beliefs and regard for language and variety as any of the long-standing (e.g. matched guise) or more recently developed (e.g. the IAT) experimental techniques that seek to uncover implicitness in this area.

Keywords: implicitness; language attitudes; language regard; presupposition

References

  • Babel, Anna (ed.). 2016. Awareness & control in sociolinguistic research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bassili, John N. & Rick D. Brown. 2005. Implicit and explicit attitudes: Research, challenges, and theory. In Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T. & Zanna, M. P. (eds.), The handbook of attitudes, 543–574. Malwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Braun, David. 2011. Implicating questions. Mind and Language 26. 574–595.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Devine, Patricia G. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56. 5–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dovidio, J. F., K. Kawakami, C. Johnson, B. Johnson & A. Howard. 1997. The nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 33. 510–540.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4). 453–476.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Evans, Betsy. 2011. “Seattletonian” to “faux hick”: Perceptions of English in Washington State. American Speech 86(4). 383–414. DOI: .CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Fazio, R. H., J. R. Jackson, B. C. Dunton & C. J. Williams. 1995. Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bonafide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69. 1013–1027.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hall-Lew, Lauren & Nola Stephens. 2012. Country talk. Journal of English Linguistics 40(3). 256–280.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hymes, D. 1966. Comment on a paper by Henry Hoenigswald (A proposal for the study of folk-linguistics). In William Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics, 26. The Hague/Paris: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar

  • Irvine, Judith. 2001. “Style” as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. In Penelope Eckert & John R. Rickford (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, 21–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kristiansen, Tore. 2009. The macro-level social meanings of late-modern Danish accents. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41. 167–92.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Loudermilk, Brandon. 2016. Implicit attitudes and the perception of sociolinguistic variation. In Alexei Prikhodkine & Dennis R. Preston (eds.), Responses to Language Variation: Variability, processes, and outcomes, 137–156. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Maartensz, Maarten. 2011. “Presupposition,” Philosophical Dictionary — Filosofisch Woordenboek. Retrieved March 29, 2018 from https://maartens.home.xs4all.nl/philosophy/Dictionary/P/Presupposition.htm.

  • Milroy, Lesley & P. McClenaghan. 1977. Stereotyped reactions to four educated accents in Ulster. Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 2(4). 1–11.Google Scholar

  • Niedzielski, Nancy & Dennis R. Preston. 2003. Folk linguistics (rev. pbk ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Niedzielski, Nancy & Dennis R. Preston. 2016. Folk pragmatics. In Barron, A., Grundy, P. & Yuego, G. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Potter, Jonathan & Margaret Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Preston, Dennis R. 1986. The fifty some-odd categories of language variation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 57. 9–47.Google Scholar

  • Preston, Dennis R. 1993. The uses of folk linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 3(2). 181–259.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Preston, Dennis R. 1994. Content-oriented discourse analysis & folk linguistics. Language Sciences 16(2). 285–330.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Preston, Dennis R. 1996. “Whaddayaknow?”: The modes of folk linguistic awareness. Language Awareness 5(1). 40–74.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Preston, Dennis R. 1999. Discourse interaction & content: A test case. SKY Journal of Linguistics 12. 145–175.Google Scholar

  • Preston, Dennis R. 2016. Whaddayaknow now? In Anna Babel (ed.), Awareness & control in sociolinguistic research, 177–199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Preston, Dennis R. 2018. Language regard: What, why, how, whither? In Evans, Betsy E., Erica J. Benson & James N. Stanford (eds.), Language regard: Methods, variation, and change, 3–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • RODEO (Research on the Dialects of Oklahoma). 2009-. A ongoing dialectological and sociolinguistic research program in the Linguistics and Applied Linguistics/TESOL Program of the Oklahoma State University English Department.Google Scholar

  • Rodgers, Elena. 2016. A rhetorical analysis of folk linguistic discourse: the case of twang. American Speech 91(4). 393–424.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rodgers, Elena. 2017. Discursive constructions of sociolinguistic differences: a rhetorical analysis. Oklahoma State University doctoral dissertation. Dissertation Repository: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (10276338).Google Scholar

  • Schiffrin, Deborah. 1985. Everyday argument: The organization of diversity in talk. In Teun van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis: Volume 3: Discourse and dialogue, 35–46. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Paul R. Clyne, William F. Hanks & Carol L. Hofbauer (eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1981. The limits of awareness. Sociolinguistic Working Paper 4. Austin TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar

  • Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23. 193–229.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Southard, Bruce. 1993. Elements of Midwestern speech in Oklahoma. In Frazer, T. C. (ed.), “Heartland” English, 229–243. Tuscaloosa & London: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

  • Speelman, Dirk, Adriaan Spruyt, Leen Impe & Dirk Geeraerts. 2013. Language attitudes revisited: Auditory affective priming. Journal of Pragmatics 52. 83–92.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Tucker, G. Richard & Wallace E. Lambert. 1969. White and Negro listeners’ reactions to various American English dialects. Social Forces 47. 463–468.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-04-16

Accepted: 2018-12-13

Published Online: 2019-04-18


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 5, Issue s1, 20180006, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0006.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in