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 …

Reflections on the relation between direct/indirect methods and explicit/implicit attitudes

Nicolai PharaoORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6828-9061 / Tore Kristiansen
Published Online: 2019-04-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0010

Abstract

The paper discusses the relation between direct/indirect methods and explicit/implicit attitudes against the background of how the issue of consciousness (or awareness) is understood and treated in a great deal of research. We focus on the use of techniques that purport to probe the implicit language attitudes held by respondents, and discuss some recent suggestions to modifications of traditional indirect methods. Our main point is that the use of indirect methods does not per se tap into implicit language attitudes in the sense of unconscious language attitudes. In that regard, aspects of how the indirect elicitation is designed and conducted are of pivotal importance. Our insistence on adding the consciousness perspective to the methods-and-attitudes issue derives from our experiences with describing and explaining the recent radical linguistic transformation (homogenization) of the Danish language and speech community. We have found unconscious attitudes – or what we prefer to call subconsciously offered attitudes – to have been a main driving force in that transformation. In investigations with other research interests than sociolinguistic change, an insistence on the importance of securing subconsciously offered attitudes in addition to the consciously offered ones may be of less relevance.

Keywords: language attitudes; explicitness and implicitness; speaker evaluation experiments; Matched Guise Technique; Verbal Guise Technique

References

  • Babel, Molly. 2010. Dialect convergence and divergence in New Zealand English. Language in Society 39(4). 437–456.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2010. New directions in sociolinguistic cognition. Selected papers from NWAV 37, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15(2). 31–39.Google Scholar

  • Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2013. Connecting attitudes and language behavior via implicit sociolinguistic cognition. In Tore Kristiansen & Stefan Grondelaers (eds.), Language (De)standardization in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies, 307–330. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar

  • Gawronski, Bertram & Galen V. Bodenhausen. 2006. Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin 132(5). 692–731.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gawronski, Bertram, Wilhelm Hofmann & Christopher J. Wilbur. 2006. Are “implicit” attitudes unconscious? Consciousness and Cognition 15. 485–499.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Giles, Howard. 1970. Evaluative reactions to accents. Educational Review 22. 211–227.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Greenwald, Anthony G., Debbie E. McGhee & Jordan L. K. Schwartz. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6). 1461–1480.Google Scholar

  • Greenwald, Anthony G. & Brian A. Nosek. 2008. Attitudinal dissociation: What does it mean? In Petty, R. E., Fazio, R. H., & Briñol, P. (eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures, 65–82. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Kristiansen, Tore. 2009. The macro-level social meanings of late-modern Danish accents. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41. 167–192.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kristiansen, Tore. 2010. Conscious and subconscious attitudes towards English imports in the Nordic countries: Evidence for two levels of language ideology. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 204. 59–95.Google Scholar

  • Kristiansen, Tore. 2011. Attitudes, ideology and awareness. In Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone & Paul Kerswill (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 265–278. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE.Google Scholar

  • Kristiansen, Tore. 2015. The primary relevance of subconsciously offered attitudes: Focusing the language ideological aspect of sociolinguistic change. In Alexei Prikhodkine & Dennis R. Preston (eds.), Responses to Language Varieties. Variability, Processes and Outcomes, 87–116. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Kristiansen, Tore & Stefan Grondelaers (eds.). 2013. Language (De)standardization in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies. Oslo: Novus. (accessible at http://lanchart.hum.ku.dk/research/slice/publications-and-news-letters/publications/).

  • Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

  • Labov, William, Sharon Ash, Maya Ravindranath, Tracey Weldom, Maciej Baranowski & Naomi Nagy. 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(4). 431–463.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Lambert, Wallace, Richard Hodgson, Robert Gardner & Stanley Fillenbaum. 1960. Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60. 44–51.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Maegaard, Marie, Torben J. Jensen, Tore Kristiansen & J. N. Jørgensen. 2013. Diffusion of language change: Accommodation to a moving target. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17(1). 3–36.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • McKenzie, Robert M. & Erin Carrie. 2018. Implicit-explicit attitudinal discrepancy and the investigation of language attitude change in progress. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 39(9). 830–844.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Soukup, Barbara. 2013. On matching speaker (dis)guises – revisiting a methodological tradition. In Tore Kristiansen & Stefan Grondelaers (eds.), Language (De)standardization in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies, 267–286. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar

  • Tamminga, Meredith. 2017. Matched guise effects can be robust to speech style. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142(1). Express Letters 18–23.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-04-10

Accepted: 2018-11-26

Published Online: 2019-04-18


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 5, Issue s1, 20180010, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0010.

Export Citation

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

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in