levon exapp 2013
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
ExAPP | 20 March 2013 | University of Copenhagen
Indexical Polysemy (e.g., Ochs 1992; Eckert 2012)
• Social meaning of variants are under‐specified
• Relevant meanings emerge in particular social and linguistic contexts
Production research helps us to understand how speakers make strategic use of indexical variability (e.g., Podesva 2007; Mendoza‐Denton 2008; Sharma 2011)
Perception research helps us to understand the mechanism through which social meaning potentials are realised (e.g., Niedzielski 1999; Campbell‐Kibler 2009)
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Perceptions of sexuality, gender and social class among men in Britain
Gender and sexuality (femininity and gayness positively correlated)e.g., Gaudio 1994; Munson et al 2006; Levon 2006, 2007; Campbell‐Kibler 2011
Sexuality and social class (gayness and social class positively correlated)e.g., Keogh 1994; Connell 1995; Mosse 1996 (also Campbell‐Kibler 2011; Levon 2011)
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Mean Pitchcorrelation between mean F0 and effeminacy(e.g., Gaudio 1994; Smyth, Jacobs & Rogers 2003; Drager 2010; Campbell‐Kibler 2011)
Sibilancecorrelation between /s/‐COG, ‐(negative) skew and gayness(e.g., Linville 1998; Munson et al 2006; Munson 2007; Campbell‐Kibler 2011; Maegaard et al, fc)
TH‐frontingcorrelation between labio‐dental realisations and working class speech(e.g., Wells 1982; Kerswill 2003; Robinson 2005; Stuart‐Smith & Timmins 2006)
Levon | ExAPP 2013
gender
sexuality
social class
• Stimulus passage recorded by 3 SE males, mid‐late 20s, urban vs. suburban• Passage contained 15 tokens of [θ/ð], 27 tokens of [s]• Recorded with [θ/ð] and with [f/v] (fronted)• Recorded with “normal” [s] and replaced with “exaggerated” [s] (sibilant)
• Pitch raised by 20 Hz across the board (shifted)
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 “exaggerated”
Mean CoG 5779.91 5871.97 5508.5 7446.15
Mean Skewness ‐ 0.74 ‐ 0.79 ‐ 0.89 ‐ 1.42
Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3
Original pitch (grand mean) 99.4 100.6 101.2
Raised pitch (grand mean) 119.5 119.2 121.1
• Three sets of 8 stimuli derived:
Levon | ExAPP 2013
a. [‐FRONTED] [‐SIBILANT] [‐SHIFTED]
b. [‐FRONTED] [‐SIBILANT] [+SHIFTED]
c. [‐FRONTED] [+SIBILANT] [‐SHIFTED]
d. [+FRONTED] [‐SIBILANT] [‐SHIFTED]
e. [‐FRONTED] [+SIBILANT] [+SHIFTED]
f. [+FRONTED] [+SIBILANT] [‐SHIFTED]
g. [+FRONTED] [‐SIBILANT] [+SHIFTED]
h. [+FRONTED] [+SIBILANT] [+SHIFTED]
slipped or something
• Experiment conducted online using Experigen (Becker & Levine 2010)• 189 respondents
• Native speakers of British English• Ages 18‐75 (mean age: 30.1)• 134 women, 55 men (71/29)• 150 heterosexual, 39 GLB (79/21)
• Each respondent heard one sample for each speaker (randomised)• Respondents rated each sample on eight 6‐point Likert scales
Levon | ExAPP 2013
• After rating all speakers, respondents provided basic demographic info• Completed short Male Role Attitude Survey (Pleck, Sonenstein & Ku 1994)
Levon | ExAPP 2013
(1 = completely disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 5 = completely agree)
1) It is important for a man to be respected by others.
2) A man is responsible for earning a good income and providing for his family.
3) I admire a man who’s sure of himself.
4) A man shouldn’t talk about his problems.
5) It’s important for a man to be physically tough even if he’s not very big.
6) It bothers me if a man acts in a feminine manner.
7) I don’t think a man should have to do housework.
8) Men are always ready for sex.
(α = 0.745)
Shared Percepts
• main effect of pitch on perceptions of prestige (p = 0.022)• upward shifted stimuli perceived as less “prestigious”
• main effect of fronting on perceptions of likeability (p = 0.015)• fronted stimuli perceived as more “likeable”
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Shared Percepts
• main effect of pitch on perceptions of prestige (p = 0.022)• upward shifted stimuli perceived as less “prestigious”
• main effect of fronting on perceptions of likeability (p = 0.015)• fronted stimuli perceived as more “likeable”
Mediated Percepts
• interaction between pitch and MRAS score on perceptions of sexuality (p = 0.007)• whether upward shifted stimuli are perceived as “gayer” mediated by the extent to
which listener endorses normative male stereotype
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Levon | ExAPP 2013
n = 91, p = 0.846 n = 68, p = 0.099 n = 30, p = 0.003
stereotype‐driven attribute assimilation (e.g., Bodenhausen & Macrae 1998)
Shared Percepts
• main effect of pitch on perceptions of prestige (p = 0.022)• upward shifted stimuli perceived as less “prestigious”
• main effect of fronting on perceptions of likeability (p = 0.015)• fronted stimuli perceived as more “likeable”
Mediated Percepts
• interaction between pitch and MRAS score on perceptions of sexuality (p = 0.007)• whether upward shifted stimuli are perceived as “gayer” mediated by the extent to
which listener endorses normative male stereotype
Dependent Percepts
• interaction between sibilance and listener sexuality on perceptions of sexuality (p = 0.02)• sibilant stimuli are perceived as “gayer” for heterosexual listeners only• effect is not conditioned by attitude (MRAS score)
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Fronting and Sibilance• association between fronting and “likeability” conditioned by sibilance for those
listeners where sibilance = “gay”• likeability effect inoperative if listeners simultaneously perceive speaker as gay
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Heterosexual Raters
Fixed Effects Estimate Std. Error t value p (MCMC)
(Intercept) 3.043 0.153 19.902 0.000
Sibilant (YES) ‐0.330 0.210 ‐1.573 0.117
Fronting (YES) ‐0.477 0.212 ‐2.245 0.024
Sibilant : Fronting 0.777 0.292 2.664 0.008
Random Effects Name Variance Std. Dev.
Rater (intercept) 0.118 0.344
Speaker (intercept) 0.000 0.000
Residual 0.458 0.677Number of objects: 450. Groups: Rater (150); Speaker (3). Log likelihood = ‐236.5
Inhibition Effect• gay percept inhibits likeable percept• consistent with research on stereotype inconsistent attribute inhibition (e.g., Wyer 1998;
Macrae & Bodenhausen 2000, 2001; Hogg & Cooper 2003; Wigboldus 2003)
• BUT no interaction with stereotype endorsement (MRAS)• automatic stereotype activation? Different stereotype/attitude (i.e., prestige vs. likeability)?
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Inhibition Effect• gay percept inhibits likeable percept• consistent with research on stereotype inconsistent attribute inhibition (e.g., Wyer 1998;
Macrae & Bodenhausen 2000, 2001; Hogg & Cooper 2003; Wigboldus 2003)
Non‐Attention Effect• fronting/likeability percept is not attended to when sibilance/gay percept is present• non‐attention could be due to contextual or linguistic factors
CONTEXTUAL: task goals, category salience, cognitive load (e.g., Biernat & Vescio 1993; Smith, Fazio & Cejka 1996; Pnedry & Macrae 1996; Quinn, Macrae & Bodenhausen 2003)
LINGUISTIC: relative perceptual prominence of sibilance versus fronting (e.g., Ellis 2006; Preston 2010, 2011; cf. also Houghton & Tipper 1996)
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Contextual Factors?• variation in perception across speakers• one speaker never heard as “gay”
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Pitch*MRAS
Contextual Factors?• variation in perception across speakers• one speaker never heard as “gay”
Sibilance*listener sexuality
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Contextual Factors?
Linguistic Factors?• combination of equally prominent features• interaction pitch and sibilance
For heterosexual listeners with high MRAS:• Upward shifting effect on “gay” (p = 0.006)• Sibilance effect on “gay” (p = 0.029)
• Effect is not additive• Pitch+Sibilance together have same effect
as either on their own(cf. Levon 2006, 2007; Campbell‐Kibler 2011)
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Attribute Inhibition? Non‐operative features not constrained by listener attitude Non‐operative features for both “compatible” and “incompatible” categories
Contextual Factors? Find non‐operative features even when contextual factors are controlled
Linguistic Factors? Find non‐operative features even when linguistic factors are controlled
Threshold Effect (e.g., Preston 2011; Stevenage et al. 2012)• Listeners quickly access a categorization/representation (e.g., Agha 2007)• Once a representation has been accessed, perceptual attention wanes and listeners
disregard additional/subsequent information in the signal• Non‐operational nature of certain features not necessarily linked to stereotypes or
contextual/linguistic salience, but rather an upshot of sociolinguistic processing
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Perception research helps us to understand the mechanism through which social meaning potentials are realised:
Social meanings are listener‐dependent(Niedzielski & Preston 2003; Campbell‐Kibler 2009; Foulkes 2010; Preston 2011)
Perception of combinations of features not simply additive
Provides insight into cognitive mechanism that governs sociolinguistic perception, and supports the central role of schematic representation
Underscores importance of treating sociolinguistic perception as a complex phenomenon, distinct from sociolinguistic production
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Department of LinguisticsQueen Mary, University of London
Levon | ExAPP 2013
Thanks to Kathryn Campbell‐Kibler, Katie Drager, Penny Eckert, Miriam Meyerhoff, Nicolai Pharao, Devyani Sharma, Lal Zimman and all those who kindly circulated the experiment to their contacts.