1887
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X

Abstract

Recent research has shown that speech perception can easily be influenced by the overall accent of the speaker. This paper investigates whether such accentinduced bias also occurs in speech transcription by professional and linguistically trained coders and to what extent such a bias may affect linguistic analyses. We compare the transcriptions of the Bären vowel in Standard German with the acoustic values of these vowels, as well as sociolinguistic analyses based on both of these. The results of the two analyses turn out to be considerably different. Further examination shows that the coders only partly relied on the acoustic values. The residual does not consist of random errors, but correlate with the degree of accentedness of the speakers. We conclude that this accent-induced coder bias led the coders to transcribe the codings according to their expectations about the pronunciation in the local dialect – expectations that were quite different from the acoustic reality.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.13.1.03slo
2015-06-23
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Boersma, P. , & Weenink, D
    (2010) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. [computer program].
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brennan, E.M. , & Brennan, J.S
    (1981) Accent scaling and language attitudes: Reactions to Mexican American English speech. Language and Speech, 24(3), 207–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, J.L
    (1999) Usage-based phonology. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, 1, 211–242. doi: 10.1075/slcs.41.12byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.41.12byb [Google Scholar]
  4. (2007) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  5. Christy, A.L
    (2010) The effects of explicit knowledge of and implicit attitudes about race on adult perceptions of children’s speech. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Minnesota.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cronbach, L.J
    (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cutler, A. , Eisner, F. , McQueen, J.M. , & Norris, D
    (2010) How abstract phonemic categories are necessary for coping with speaker-related variation. Laboratory Phonology,10, 91–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Drager, K
    (2005) From bad to bed: The relationship between perceived age and vowel perception in New Zealand English. Te Reo, 48, 55–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2010) Sociophonetic variation in speech perception. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(7), 473–480. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00210.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00210.x [Google Scholar]
  10. (2011) Speaker age and vowel perception. Language and Speech, 54(1), 99–121. doi: 10.1177/0023830910388017
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910388017 [Google Scholar]
  11. Escudero, P. , Boersma, P. , Rauber, A.S. , & Bion, R.A.H
    (2009) A cross-dialect acoustic description of vowels: Brazilian and European Portuguese RID E-6746-2011. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(3), 1379–1393. doi: 10.1121/1.3180321
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3180321 [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans, K.E
    (2012) Unpacking listener bias: The effects of attitudes, knowledge, and experience on clinician’s ratings of African-American children’s speech. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Minnesota.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Giles, H
    (1973) Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hall-Lew, L. , & Fix, S
    (2012) Perceptual coding reliability of (L)-vocalization in casual speech data. Lingua, 122(7), 794–809. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hay, J. , & Drager, K
    (2010) Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics, 48(4), 865–892. doi: 10.1515/ling.2010.027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.027 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hay, J. , Nolan, A. , & Drager, K
    (2006) From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review, 23(3), 351–379. doi: 10.1515/TLR.2006.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.014 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hay, J. , Warren, P. , & Drager, K
    (2006) Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics, 34(4), 458–484. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Heeringa, W. , & Hinskens, F
    (2014) Convergence between dialect varieties and dialect groups in the Dutch language area. In B. Szmrecsanyi & B. Wälchli (Eds.), Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech (pp. 26–52). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110317558.26
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110317558.26 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hinskens, F. , & van Oostendorp, M
    (2009) Sources of phonological variation in a large database for Dutch dialects. In S. Tsiplakou , M. Karyolemou , & P.Y. Pavlou (Eds.), Language variation-European perspectives II: Selected papers from the 4th international conference on language variation in Europe (ICLaVE 4), Nicosia, June 2007 (pp. 103–118). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/silv.5.09hin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.5.09hin [Google Scholar]
  20. Hove, I
    (2002) Die Aussprache der Standardsprache in der deutschen Schweiz. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110919936
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110919936 [Google Scholar]
  21. Huesmann, A
    (1998) Zwischen Dialekt und Standard: Empirische Untersuchung zur Soziolinguistik des Varietätenspektrums im deutschen. Tübingen, Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kang, O. , & Rubin, D.L
    (2009) Reverse linguistic stereotyping: Measuring the effect of listener expectations on speech evaluation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28(4), 441–456. doi: 10.1177/0261927X09341950
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09341950 [Google Scholar]
  23. Klausmann, H
    (1985) Die breisgauer Mundarten. Teil 1. Textband. Marburg: N.G. Elwert Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. König, W
    (1989) Atlas zur Aussprache des Schriftdeutschen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ismaening: Max Hueber Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kinzler, K.D. , Shutts, K. , Dejesus, J. , & Spelke, E.S
    (2009) Accent trumps race in guiding children’s social preferences. Social Cognition, 27(4), 623–634. doi: 10.1521/soco.2009.27.4.623
    https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.4.623 [Google Scholar]
  26. Labov, W
    (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2006) The social stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511618208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618208 [Google Scholar]
  28. Löffler, H
    (1994) Germanistische Soziolinguistik. Berlin: Ehrich Schmidt Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mangold, M
    (1994) Duden Aussprachewörterbuch. Mannheim: Duden Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Munro, M.J. , Derwing, T.M. , & Flege, J.E
    (1999) Canadians in Alabama: A perceptual study of dialect acquisition in adults. Journal of Phonetics, 27(4), 385–403. doi: 10.1006/jpho.1999.0101
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1999.0101 [Google Scholar]
  31. Niedzielski, N
    (1999) The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(1), 62–85. doi: 10.1177/0261927X99018001005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X99018001005 [Google Scholar]
  32. Noth, H
    (1993) Alemannisches Dialekthandbuch vom Kaiserstuhl und seiner Umgebung. Freiburg i. Br: Schillinger Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (1996) Breisgauer Alemannische Kurzgrammatik. Freiburg: Verein zur Förderung der Landeskunde an den Schulen e.V.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Palmeri, T.J. , Goldinger, S.D. , & Pisoni, D.B
    (1993) Episodic encoding of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,19(2), 309–328. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.19.2.309
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.2.309 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pierrehumbert, J.B
    (2001) Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. Typological Studies in Language, 45, 137–158. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45.08pie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.08pie [Google Scholar]
  36. Pietraszewski, D. , & Schwartz, A
    (2014) Evidence that accent is a dimension of social categorization, not a byproduct of perceptual salience, familiarity, or ease-of-processing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(1), 43–50. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.09.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  37. Preston, D.R
    (1993) Folk dialect maps. In A.W. Glowka & D.M. Lance (Eds.), Language variation in North American English: Research and teaching (pp.333–377). New York: Modern Language Association of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. R Development Core Team
    (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Rakić, T. , Steffens, M.C. , & Mummendey, A
    (2011) Blinded by the accent! the minor role of looks in ethnic categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 16–29. doi: 10.1037/a0021522
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021522 [Google Scholar]
  40. Repp, B.H. , & Liberman, A.M
    (1987) Phonetic category boundaries are flexible. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition (89–112). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Rubin, D.L
    (1992) Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates’ judgments of nonnative english-speaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 33(4), 511–531. doi: 10.1007/BF00973770
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00973770 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sloos, M
    (2012) Standard or dialect? A new online elicitation method. Dialectologia, 9, 98–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2013a) Frequency and phonological grammar: An integrated approach. evidence from German, Indonesian, and Japanese. PhD dissertation. University of Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2013b) Halo! don’t always trust the native speaker. In C. Conlan (Ed.), Evolving paradigms: Language and applied linguistics in a changing world (pp. 325–350). Perth: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Spiekermann, H
    (2008) Sprache in Baden-Württemberg: Merkmale des regionalen Standards. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. doi: 10.1515/9783484971028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783484971028 [Google Scholar]
  46. Stearns, M.J. , & Voge, W
    (1979) The contemporary pronunciation of long in Modern Standard German: A data-based, computer-assisted analysis. In J. Köster (Ed.), Hamburger Phonetische Beiträge. Untersuchungen zur Phonetik und Linguistik. Miszellen VI (pp. 127–181). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Steger, H
    (1989) Südwestdeutscher Sprachatlas. Marburg: Elwert.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Traunmüller, H
    (1990) Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(1), 97–100. doi: 10.1121/1.399849
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.399849 [Google Scholar]
  49. van Bezooijen, R. , & van Heuven, V
    (2010) Avant-garde Dutch: A perceptual, acoustic and evaluational study. In D.R. Preston , & N.A. Niedzielski (Eds.), A reader in sociophonetics (pp. 357–378). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Veer, B. van der
    (2006) The Italian ‘mobile diphthongs’: A test case for experimental phonetics and phonological theory. PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. van Heugten, M. , & Johnson, E.K
    (2014) Learning to contend with accents in infancy: Benefits of brief speaker exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 340–350. doi: 10.1037/a0032192
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032192 [Google Scholar]
  52. van Heuven, V. , van Bezooijen, R. , & Edelman, L
    (2005) Pronunciation of /ɛi/ in avant-garde Dutch: A cross–sex acoustic study. In M. Filppula , J. Klemola , M. Palander , & E. Penttila (Eds.), Dialects across borders (pp. 185–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.273.12heu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.273.12heu [Google Scholar]
  53. van Heuven, V. , & van der Veer, B
    (2003) Speech shadowing as an elicitation technique in variation research: The case of the Italian mobile diphthongs. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences , Barcelona (pp. 2805–2808).
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wiesinger, P
    (1970) Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten. I. die Langvokale im Hochdeutschen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Williams, A. , Garrett, P. , & Coupland, N
    (1999) Dialect recognition. In D. Preston (Ed.), Handbook of perceptual dialectology (pp. 345–358). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.hpd1.29wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.hpd1.29wil [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.13.1.03slo
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): accent , bias , Bären vowel , perception , social indexicality and transcription
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error