Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T03:26:24.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I'll be the judge of that: Diversity in social perceptions of (ING)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2008

KATHRYN CAMPBELL-KIBLER
KATHRYN CAMPBELL-KIBLER
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University, 222 Oxley Hall, 1712 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210-1298, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines divergent listener perceptions with an expanded form of the Matched Guise Technique, using 32 matched pairs of short recordings of natural speech. Social evaluations were collected in open-ended interviews (N = 55) and an online experiment (N = 124). Three speakers are described who prompted disagreement about the English variable (ING). One's -ing use is seen by some as more intelligent and by others as annoying, less intelligent, and trying to impress. Another's -in guise is seen as compassionate by some and as condescending by others, while a third, when using -in, is seen by some as annoying and less masculine, while others describe him as a masculine “jock.” These findings show that listeners shift their interpretations of a linguistic resource, highlighting the ambiguous role intention plays in social meaning and calling into question long-held assumptions about the need for conscious introspection in sociolinguistic perception.

Keywords

variationperceptionsocial meaningagency
Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 37 , Issue 5 , November 2008 , pp. 637 - 659
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Apple, William; Streeter, Lynn A.; & Krauss, Robert M. (1979). Effects of pitch and speech rate on personal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:715–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aune, R. Kelly, & Kikuchi, Toshiyuki (1993). Effects of language intensity similarity on perceptions of credibility, relational attributions, and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 12(3):224–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, Peter (1983). Stereotypes of Anglo-Saxon and non-Anglo-Saxon accents: Some exploratory Australian studies with the matched guise technique. Language Sciences 5:163–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13:145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan (2001). Back in style: Reworking audience design. In Eckert, Penelope & Rickford, John R. (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation, 139–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourhis, Richard Y. (1984). Cross-cultural communication in Montreal: Two field studies since Bill 101. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46:33–47.Google Scholar
Bradac, James J.; Cargile, Aaron Castelan; & Hallett, Jennifer S. (2001). Language attitudes: Retrospect, conspect and prospect. In Robinson, W. Peter & Giles, Howard (eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology, 137–55. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith (2001). Giving an account of oneself. Diacritics 31(4):22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
California Style Collective (1993). Variation and personal/group style. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 21, Ontario.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn (2005). Listener perceptions of sociolinguistic variables: the case of (ING). Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn (2007). Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, Elaine (2006). Talking preppy: Indeterminacies of style, structure and social meaning. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 35, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice: The lingustic construction of identity in Belten High. (Language in Society, 27.) New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fischer, John (1958). Social influence of a linguistic variant. Word 14:47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridland, Valerie; Bartlett, Kathryn; & Kreuz, Roger (2004). Do you hear what I hear? Experimental measurement of the perceptual salience of acoustically manipulated vowel variants by Southern speakers in Memphis, TN. Language Variation and Change 16:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Howard, & Billings, Andrew C. (2004). Assessing language attitudes: Speaker evaluation studies. In Davies, Alan & Elder, Catherine (eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics, 187–209. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Howard; Coupland, Nikolas; Henwood, Karen; Harriman, Jim; & Coupland, Justine (1990). The social meaning of RP: An intergenerational perspective. In Ramgaran, S. (ed.), Studies in the pronunciation of English: A commemorative volume in honor of A. C. Gimson, 191–211. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, & Powesland, Peter (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. San Francisco: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review 66:377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guaïtella, Isabelle (1999). Rhythm in speech: What rhythmic organizations reveal about cognitive processes in spontaneous speech production versus reading aloud. Journal of Pragmatics 31:509–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Half Moon Bay Style Collective (2006). Elements of style. Poster presented by Kathryn Campbell-Kibler, Penelope Eckert, Norma Mendoza-Denton, and Emma Moore at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 35, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Hazen, Kirk (2005). The in/ing variable. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 5. 2nd ed.Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hirose, Keikichi, & Kawanami, Hiromichi (2002). Temporal rate change of dialogue speech in prosodic units as compared to read speech. Speech Communication 36:97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara (2007). Linking identity and dialect through stancetaking. In Englebretson, Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesling, Scott (1998). Men's identities and sociolinguistic variation: The case of fraternity men. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2:69–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William; Ash, Sharon; Baranowski, Maciej; Ravindranath, Maya; Weldon, Tracy; & Nagy, Naomi (2005). Listeners' sensitivity to the frequency of sociolinguistic variables. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 34.Google Scholar
Ladegaard, Hans J. (2000). Language attitudes and the sociolinguistic behavior: Exploring attitude-behavior relations in language. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4:214–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, Wallace E.; Hodgson, R. C.; Gardner, R. C.; & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60(1):44–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehta, Gita, & Cutler, Anne (1988). Detection of target phonemes in spontaneous and read speech. Language and Speech 31:135–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ochs, Elinor (1992). Indexing gender. In Duranti, Alessandro & Goodwin, Charles (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 335–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paltridge, John, & Giles, Howard (1984). Attitudes towards speakers of regional accents of French: Effects of regionality, age and sex of listeners. Linguistische Berichte 90:71–85.Google Scholar
Plichta, Bartek, & Preston, Dennis R. (2005). The /ay/s have it: The perception of /ay/ as a North-South stereotype in US English. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 243–85 (Theme issue on “Subjective Processes in Language Variation and Change”, edited by Tore Kristiansen, Nikolas Coupland and Peter Garrett).Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. (2006). Phonetic detail in sociolinguistic variation. Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert J.; Roberts, Sarah J.; & Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn (2001). Sharing resources and indexing meanings in the production of gay styles. In Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn, Podesva, Robert J., Roberts, Sarah J., & Wong, Andrew (eds.), Language and sexuality: Contesting meaning in theory and practice, 175–89. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Purnell, Thomas; Idsardi, William; & Baugh, John (1999). Perceptual and phonetic experiments on American English dialect identification. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18:10–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, George B., & Zahn, Christopher J. (1999). Language attitudes and speech behavior: New Zealand English and Standard American English. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18:310–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, John R. (1986). The need for new approaches to social class analysis in sociolinguistics. Language and Communication 6:215–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuy, Roger; Wolfram, Walt; & Riley, William K. (1967). Linguistic correlates of social stratification in Detroit speech. USOE Final Report No. 6-1347. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Smyth, Ron; Jacobs, Greg; & Rogers, Henry (2003). Male voices and perceived sexual orientation: An experimental and theoretical approach. Language in Society 32:329–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, Richard L. Jr.; Brady, Robert M.; & Putman, William B. (1983). The influence of speech rate stereotypes and rate similarity on listeners' evaluations of speakers. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2:37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Frederick; Hewett, Nancy; Hopper, Robert; Miller, Leslie M.; Naremore, Rita C.; & Whitehead, Jack L. (1976). Explorations of the linguistic attitudes of teachers. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Wölck, Wolfgang (1985). Language attitude studies. Problems and suggestions. In Hartig, Matthias (ed.), Perspektiven der angewandten Soziolinguistik, 35–48. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Wyer, Robert S. Jr. (2004). Social comprehension and judgment: The role of situation models, narratives and implicit theories. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zhang, Qing (2005). A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: Phonological variation and the construction of a new professional identity. Language in Society 34:431–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar