Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:20:23.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genre and linguistic expectation shift: Evidence from pop song lyrics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2018

Lauren Squires
Lauren Squires*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Lauren Squires The Ohio State University421 Denney Hall 164 Annie & John Glenn Ave. Columbus, OH 43210[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Popular song lyrics constitute an exception to dominant, standard language ideologies of English: nonstandard grammatical forms are common, relatively unstigmatized, and even enregistered in the genre. This project uses song lyrics to test whether genre cues can shift linguistic expectations, influencing how speakers process morphosyntactic variants. In three self-paced reading experiments, participants read sentences from pop songs. Test sentences contained either ‘standard’ NPSG + doesn't or ‘nonstandard’ NPSG + don't. In Experiment 1, some participants were told that the sentences came from lyrics, while others received no context information. Experiment 2 eliminated other nonstandardisms in the stimuli, and Experiment 3 tested for the effect of stronger context information. Genre information caused participants to orient to the sentences differently, which partially—but not straightforwardly—mitigated surprisal at nonstandard don't. I discuss future directions for understanding the effects of context on sociolinguistic processing, which I argue can inform concepts like genre and enregisterment, and the processes underlying language attitudes. (Morphosyntactic variation, genre, invariant don't, language ideology, pop songs, experimental sociolinguistics, sentence processing)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 1 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Thanks to the editor and anonymous reviewer, who provided critical and helpful readings of this article. I would also like to acknowledge Robin Queen and Julie Boland for longstanding conversations that have shaped this research; my research assistants, Bethany Toma and Jamie Smith; and my departmental colleagues, Tracee Mohler and Wayne Lovely, who helped me in various ways to get this work done. I am also grateful to audiences at SVALP, Stanford University, and the Graduate Center at CUNY for their valuable comments and questions on this work as it evolved. All shortcomings are, as always, my own responsibility.

References

REFERENCES

Agha, Asif (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Ed. by Emerson, Caryl & Holquist, Michael. Trans. by McGee, Vern W.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. (2009). ‘You're not from New York City, you're from Rotherham’: Dialect and identity in British indie music. Journal of English Linguistics 37(3):223–40.Google Scholar
Bértoli-Dutra, Patricia (2014). Multi-dimensional analysis of pop songs. In Sardinha, Tony Berber & Pinto, Marcia Veirano (eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis, 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber, 149–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas (1993). The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: An overview of methodology and findings. Computers and the Humanities 26:331–45.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, & Conrad, Susan (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bieber, Justin; Austin, Johntá; & Cox, Bryan-Michael (2010). Never let you go [Recorded by Justin Bieber]. On My world 2.0 [Digital download]. Atlanta, GA: Island.Google Scholar
Bieber, Justin, & Hook, Sam (2014). We were born for this [Recorded by Justin Bieber]. [Soundcloud download]. Online: https://soundcloud.com/justinbieber/we-were-born-for-this.Google Scholar
Bieber, Justin; Michaels, Julia; Tranter, Justin; Moore, Sonny; & Tucker, Michael (2015). Sorry [Recorded by Justin Bieber]. On Purpose [Digital download]. Los Angeles, CA: Def Jam.Google Scholar
Bieber, Justin; ‘Poo Bear’ Boyd, Jason; & Levy, Mason (2015). What do you mean? [Recorded by Justin Bieber]. On Purpose [Digital download]. Los Angeles, CA: Def Jam.Google Scholar
Boland, Julie; de los Santos, Guadalupe; Carranza, Julie; & Kaschak, Michael (2015). Self-paced reading time as a measure of learning novel constructions. 28th Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing. University of Southern California, March 19–21.Google Scholar
Briggs, Charles, & Bauman, Richard (1992). Genre, intertextuality and social power. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 2:131–72.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn (2007). Accent, (ING) and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech 82(1):32–64.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn (2009). The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Language Variation and Change 21(1):135–56.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn (2016). Towards a cognitively realistic model of meaningful sociolinguistic variation. In Babel, Anna M. (ed.), Awareness and control in sociolinguistic research, 123–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Childs, Rebecca (2016). Who I am and who I want to be: Variation and representation in a messaging platform. In Squires, Lauren (ed.), English in computer-mediated communication: Variation, representation, and perception, 261–80. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas (2011). Voice, place and genre in popular song performance. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15:573–602.Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and language history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D'Onofrio, Annette (2015). Persona-based information shapes linguistic perception: Valley Girls and California vowels. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19(2):241–56.Google Scholar
Drager, Katie (2011). Speaker age and vowel perception. Language and Speech 54(1):99–121.Google Scholar
Duncan, Daniel (2017). Australian singer, American features: Performing authenticity in country music. Language & Communication 52:31–44.Google Scholar
Eberhardt, Maeve, & Freeman, Kara (2015). ‘First things first, I'm the realest’: Linguistic appropriation, white privilege, and the hip-hop persona of Iggy Azalea. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19(3):303–27.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41:87–100.Google Scholar
Enochson, Kelly, & Culbertson, Jennifer (2015). Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon Mechanical Turk. PloS one 10(3):e0116946.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. (1994). Dialect, register, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization. In Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 15–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, Alex B.; Jaeger, T. Florian; Farmer, Thomas A.; & Qian, Ting (2013). Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PloS one 8(10):e77661.Google Scholar
Gibson, Andy (2010). Production and perception of vowels in New Zealand popular music. Auckland: Auckland University of Technology MPhil thesis.Google Scholar
Giltrow, Janet, & Stein, Dieter (eds.) (2009). Genres in the internet: Issues in the theory of genre. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. (1987). Discourse genres in a theory of practice. American Ethnologist 14:668–92.Google Scholar
Hanulíková, Adriana; van Alphen, Petra M.; van Goch, Merel M.; & Weber, Andrea (2012). When one person's mistake is another's standard usage: The effect of foreign accent on syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24(4):878–87.Google Scholar
Hanulíková, Adriana, & Carreiras, Manuel (2015). Electrophysiology of subject-verb agreement mediated by speakers’ gender. Frontiers in Psychology 6:1396. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01396.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, & Drager, Katie (2010). Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48(4):865–92.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer; Podlubny, Ryan; Drager, Katie; & McAuliffe, Megan (2017). Car-talk: Location-specific speech production and perception. Journal of Phonetics 65:94–109.Google Scholar
Hesson, Ashley, & Shellgren, Madeline (2015). Discourse marker like in real time: Characterizing the time-course of sociolinguistic impression formation. American Speech 90(2):154–86.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian, & Weatherholtz, Kodi (2016). What the heck is salience? How predictive language processing contributes to sociolinguistic perception. Frontiers in Psychology 7:1115. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01115.Google Scholar
Kamide, Yuki (2012). Learning individual talkers’ structural preferences. Cognition 124(1):66–71.Google Scholar
Kaschak, Michael P. (2006). What this construction needs is generalized. Memory & Cognition 34(2):368–79.Google Scholar
Kaschak, Michael P., & Glenberg, Arthur M. (2004). This construction needs learned. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133(3):450–67.Google Scholar
Kreyer, Rolf, & Mukherjee, Joybrato (2007). The style of pop song lyrics: A corpus-linguistic pilot study. Anglia 125(1):31–58.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, Gina R., & Jaeger, T. Florian (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(1):32–59.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1973). Where do grammars stop? In Shuy, Roger W. (ed.), Report of the Twenty-Third Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, 43–88. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William; Ash, Sharon; Ravindranath, Maya; Weldon, Tracey; Baranowski, Maciej; & Nagy, Naomi (2011). Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(4):431–63.Google Scholar
Levon, Erez, & Buchstaller, Isabelle (2015). Perception, cognition, and linguistic structure: The effect of linguistic modularity and cognitive style on sociolinguistic processing. Language Variation and Change 27(3):319–48.Google Scholar
Logan, Beth; Kositsky, Andrew; & Moreno, Pedro (2004). Semantic analysis of song lyrics. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME'04), vol. 2, 827–30. doi: 10.1109/ICME.2004.1394328.Google Scholar
Luka, Barbara J., & Barsalou, Lawrence W. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 52(3):436–59.Google Scholar
McGowan, Kevin B. (2015). Social expectation improves speech perception in noise. Language and Speech 58(4):502–21.Google Scholar
Milroy, James (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(4):530–55.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley, & Milroy, James (1999). Authority in language: Investigating Standard English. 3rd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moore, Emma, & Podesva, Robert J. (2009). Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society 38(4):447–85.Google Scholar
Murphey, Tim (1990). Music and song in language learning: An analysis of pop song lyrics and the use of music and song in teaching English to speakers of other languages. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Murphey, Tim (1992). The discourse of pop songs. TESOL Quarterly 26:770–74.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. (2007). Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(4):478–504.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R., & King, Sharese (2016). Language and linguistics on trial: Hearing Rachel Jeantel (and other vernacular speakers) in the courtroom and beyond. Language 92(4):948–88.Google Scholar
Rubin, Donald L. (1992). Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates’ judgments of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education 33(4):511–31.Google Scholar
Sanchez, Kauyumari; Hay, Jennifer; & Nilson, Elissa (2015). Contextual activation of Australia can affect New Zealanders’ vowel productions. Journal of Phonetics 48:76–95.Google Scholar
Seifeldin, Maryam; Cantor, Max; Boland, Julie; & Brennan, Jonathan (2015). They dropping copulas: Salient cues in the integration of speaker identity and syntax. 28th Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing. University of Southern California, March 19–21.Google Scholar
Sheeran, Ed; Blanco, Benny; & Bieber, Justin (2015). Love yourself [Recorded by Justin Bieber]. On Purpose [Digital download]. Los Angeles, CA: Def Jam.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, Paul R., Hanks, William F., & Hofbauer, Carol L. (eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Simpson, Paul (1999). Language, culture and identity: With (another) look at accents in pop and rock singing. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 18(4):343–68.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren (2010). Enregistering internet language. Language in Society 39(4):457–92.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren (2013). It don't go both ways: Limited bidirectionality in sociolinguistic perception. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17(2):200–237.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren (2014a). Knowledge, processing, evaluation: Testing the sociolinguistic perception of English subject-verb agreement variation. Journal of English Linguistics 42(2):144–72.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren (2014b). Talker specificity and the perception of grammatical variation. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(7):856–76.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren (2014c). Social differences in the processing of grammatical variation. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 20(2):Article 20. Online: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/iss2/20/.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren (2016). Processing grammatical differences: Perceiving v. noticing. In Babel, Anna M. (ed.), Awareness and control in sociolinguistic research, 80–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, Karsten, & Connolly, John F. (2008). Event-related potentials in the study of language. In Stemmer, Brigitte & Whitaker, Harry A. (eds.), Handbook of the neuroscience of language, 91–104. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Terhune, Todd (1997). Pop songs: Myths and realities. The English Connection 1(1):8–12.Google Scholar
Tesink, Cathelijne M. J. Y.; Magnus Petersson, Karl; van Berkum, Jos J. A.; van den Brink, Daniëlle; Buitelaar;, Jan K. & Hagoort, Peter (2009). Unification of speaker and meaning in language comprehension: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21(11):2085–99.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter (1983). Acts of conflicting identity: The sociolinguistics of British pop-song pronunciation. In Trudgill, Peter, On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives, 141–60. Oxford: Basil Blackwell and New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Van Berkum, Jos J. A.; van den Brink, Daniëlle; Tesink, Cathelijne M. J. Y.; Kos, Miriam; & Hagoort, Peter (2008). The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(4):580–91.Google Scholar
Weatherholtz, Kodi; Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn; & Jaeger, T. Florian (2014). Socially-mediated syntactic alignment. Language Variation and Change 26(3):387–420.Google Scholar
Werner, Valentin (2012). Love is all around: A corpus-based study of pop lyrics. Corpora 7(1):19–50.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt (1982). Language knowledge and other dialects. American Speech 57(1):3–18.Google Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In Schieffelin, Bambi B., Woolard, Kathryn A., & Kroskrity, Paul V. (eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory, 3–47. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yildirim, Ilker; Degen, Judith; Tanenhaus, Michael K.; & Jaeger, T. Florian (2016). Talker-specificity and adaptation in quantifier interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language 87:128–43.Google Scholar