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 …

The relational responding task (RRT): a novel approach to measuring social meaning of language variation

Laura Rosseel
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Linguistics, KU Leuven, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, PO-box 3308, Leuven 3000, Belgium
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Dirk Speelman
  • Department of Linguistics, KU Leuven, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, PO-box 3308, Leuven 3000, Belgium
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Dirk Geeraerts
  • Department of Linguistics, KU Leuven, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, PO-box 3308, Leuven 3000, Belgium
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-04-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0012

Abstract

Recently, sociolinguistic attitude research has adopted a number of new implicit attitude measures developed in social psychology. Especially the Implicit Association Test (IAT) has proven a successful new addition to the sociolinguist’s toolbox. Despite its relative success, the IAT has a number of limitations, such as the fact that it measures the association between two concepts (e.g. ‘I’ and ‘skinny’) without controlling for the relationship between those two concepts (e.g. ‘I am skinny’ vs. ‘I want to be skinny’). The Relational Responding Task (RRT), a novel implicit attitude measure recently developed by social psychologists, makes up for exactly that limitation by presenting participants with full propositions expressing beliefs rather than loose concepts. In this paper, we present a study that explores the RRT as a novel implicit measure of language attitudes. We employ the method to investigate the social meaning of two varieties of Dutch: Standard Belgian Dutch and colloquial Belgian Dutch. In total 391 native speakers of Belgian Dutch took part in the study. A training effect in the data aside, our results show that the latter variety is associated with dynamism, while the former is perceived as prestigious.

Keywords: language attitudes; social meaning of language variation; relational responding task; implicit attitude measures; implicitness

References

  • Bishop, Hywel, Nikolas Coupland & Peter Garrett. 2005. Conceptual accent evaluation: Thirty years of accent prejudice in the UK. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 37(1). 131–154.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Campbell-Kibler, Katherine. 2012. The Implicit Association Test and sociolinguistic meaning. Lingua 122(7). 753–763.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Coupland, Nikolas & Hywel Bishop. 2007. Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(1). 74–93.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Houwer, Jan, Sarag Teige-Mocigemba, Adriaan Spruyt & Agnes Moors. 2009. Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin 135(3). 347–368.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • De Houwer, Jan, Niclas Heider, Adriaan Spruyt, Arne Roets & Sean Hughes. 2015. The relational responding task: Toward a new implicit measure of beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology 6. Article 319.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Dewitte, Marieke, Maarten De Schryver, Niclas Heider & Jan De Houwer. 2017. The actual and ideal sexual self concept in the context of genital pain using implicit and explicit measures. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 14(5). 702–714.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 2017. Het kegelspel der taal. De naoorlogse evolutie van de Standaardnederlandsen [The postwar evolution of the Standard Dutches]. In Gert De Sutter (ed.), De Vele Gezichten Van Het Nederlands in Vlaanderen: Een Inleiding tot de Variatietaalkunde, 100–120. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk & Hans Van de Velde. 2013. Supra-regional characteristics of colloquial Dutch. In Frans Hinskens & Johan Taeldeman (eds.), Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation. Volume 3: Dutch, 532–556. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Ghyselen, Anne-Sophie. 2016. Verticale Structuur en Dynamiek van het Gesproken Nederlands in Vlaanderen: Een Empirische Studie in Ieper, Gent en Antwerpen [Vertical Structure and Dynamic of Spoken Dutch in Flanders: An Empirical Study in Ypres, Ghent and Antwerp]. Gent: Ghent University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Goossens, Jan. 2000. De toekomst van het Nederlands in Vlaanderen [The future of Dutch in Flanders]. Ons Erfdeel 43(1). 3–14.Google 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). 1464–1480.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Greenwald, Anthony G., Brian A. Nosek & Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2003. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Attitudes and Social Cognition, 85(2). 197–216.Google Scholar

  • Grondelaers, Stefan. (2013). Attitude measurements in the Low Countries. In Frans Hinskens & Johan Taeldeman (eds.), Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation. Volume 3: Dutch, 586–602. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Grondelaers, Stefan & Dirk Speelman. 2013. Can speaker evaluation return private attitudes towards stigmatised varieties? Evidence from emergent standardisation in Belgian Dutch. In Tore Kristiansen & Stefan Grondelaers (eds.), Language (De)standardisations in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies. 171–191. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar

  • Grondelaers, Stefan & Roeland van Hout. 2016. How (in)coherent can standard languages be? A perceptual perspective on co-variation. Lingua 172–173. 62–71.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Grondelaers, Stefan, Roeland van Hout & Paul van Gent. 2016. Destandardization is not destandardization. Revising standardness criteria in order to revisit standard language typologies in the Low Countries. Taal en Tongval 68(2). 119–149.Google Scholar

  • Heider, Niclas, Adriaan Spruyt & Jan De Houwer. 2018. Body Dissatisfaction Revisited: On the Importance of Implicit Beliefs about Actual and Ideal Body Image. Psychologica Belgica 57(4). 158–173.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hofmann, Wilhem, Bertram Gawronski, Tobias Gschwendner, Huy Le & Manfred Schmitt. 2005. A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(10). 1369–1385.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hughes, Sean, Ian Hussey, Bethany Corrigan, Katie Jolie, Carol Murphy, & Dermot Barnes-Holmes. 2016. Faking revisited: Exerting strategic control over performance on the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure. European Journal of Social Psychology 46(5). 632–648.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Impe, Leen & Dirk Speelman. 2007. Vlamingen en hun (tussen)taal: Een attitudineel mixed guise-onderzoek [Flemings and their (in between) language: An attitudinal mixed guise study]. Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- En Letterkunde en Geschiedenis 16. 109–128.Google Scholar

  • Jaspers, Jürgen & Van Hoof, Sarah. 2013. Hyperstandardisation in Flanders: Extreme enregisterment and its aftermath. Pragmatics 23(2). 331–359.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Koning, Ina M., Adriaan Spruyt, Suzan M. Doornwaard, Rob Turrisi, Niclas Heider & Jan De Houwer. 2016. A different view on parenting: Automatic and explicit parenting cognitions in adolescents’ drinking behavior. Journal of Substance Use 22(1). 1–6.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Lambert, Wallace E., R. C. Hodgson, Robert C. Gardner & Samuel Fillenbaum. 1960. Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60(1). 44–51.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lybaert, Chloé. 2014. Het Gesproken Nederlands in Vlaanderen. Percepties en Attitudes van een Spraakmakende Generatie [Spoken Dutch in Flanders. Perceptions and Attitudes of a Generation]. Gent: Ghent University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Martin, Dan. 2015. IAT: Functions to Use with Data from the Implicit Association Test. R package version 0.2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=IAT (accessed 1 February 2017).

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

  • Pantos, Andrew J. & Andrew Perkins. 2012. Measuring implicit and explicit attitudes toward foreign accented speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(1). 3–20.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Payne, B. Keith, Melissa A. Burkley & Mark B. Stokes. 2008. Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 94(1). 16–31.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Plevoets, Koen. 2008. Tussen Spreek- en Standaardtaal [Between Spoken and Standard Language]. Leuven: University of Leuven PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Preston, Dennis R. 2010. Variation in language regard. In Evelyn Zeigler, Peter Gilles & Joachim Scharloth (eds.), Variatio delectat: Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation (für Klaus J. Mattheier zum 65. Geburtstag), 7–27. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Rosseel, Laura, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2018. Measuring language attitudes using the Personalized Implicit Association Test: A case study on regional varieties of Dutch in Belgium. Journal of Linguistic Geography 6(1). 20–39.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Soukup, Barbara. 2013. On matching speaker (dis)guises – Revisiting a methodological tradition. In Tore Kristiansen & Stefan Grondelaers (eds.), Language (De)standardisation in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies, 267–285. Oslo: Novus.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

  • Taeldeman, Johan. 2008. Zich stabiliserende grammaticale kenmerken in Vlaamse tussentaal [Stabilizing grammatical features in Flemish ‘in between language’]. Taal en Tongval 60(1). 26–50.Google Scholar

  • Van Bree, Cor. 1988. Oordelen van standaardtaal-, dialect- en sociolectsprekers over standaardtaalvariëteiten, dialecten en sociolecten [Judgements by speakers of standard language, dialect and sociolect about standard varieties, dialects and sociolects]. Leuvense Bijdragen 77. 1–42.Google Scholar

  • Vandekerckhove, Reinhild & Pol Cuvelier. 2007. The perception of exclusion and proximity through the use of standard Dutch, ‘tussentaal’ and dialect in Flanders. In Pol Cuvelier, Theodorus du Plessis, Michael Meeuwis, & Lut Teck (eds.), Multilingualism and Exclusion: Policy, Practice and Prospects, 241–256. Hatfield, Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar

  • Van Gijsel, Sofie, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2008. Style shifting in commercials. Journal of Pragmatics 40(2). 205–226.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Walker, Grace H. 2017. Relational responding task as an implicit measure of depression and psychological flexibility. Canterbury: University of Canterbury MA thesis.Google Scholar

  • Willemyns, Roland. 1979. Bedenkingen bij het taalgedrag van Vlaamse universiteitsstudenten uit Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde [Thoughts on the linguistic behaviour of Flemish university students from Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde]. Taal en Sociale Integratie 2. 141–159.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-03-15

Accepted: 2018-12-13

Published Online: 2018-04-18


Funding Source: Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

Award identifier / Grant number: PhD

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), Funder Id: 10.13039/501100003130, Grant Number: PhD fellowship held by the first author.


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 5, Issue s1, 20180012, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0012.

Export Citation

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

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in