As a former high school debater, reading the three papers authored or co-authored by Sumner really got me thinking about the impact of speaker characteristics on audience perception of arguments in debates. In theory, the winner of a debate is the person who makes the stronger case for their side and against the other, providing the rationally sound arguments backed up by evidence. In reality, a myriad of other factors play into a judge's decision, many of them based in linguistics.
The fact that female debaters tend to be docked or criticized more often than male debaters for exhibiting aggressive behavior (i.e., interrupting/speaking forcefully during crossfire) or for speaking with passion has been quite well-documented (see The Washington Post and badballotblog). On the one hand, when men speak forcefully, their arguments are viewed as passionate but rational; on the other hand, when women do likewise, their arguments are often viewed as emotion-based and even hysterical (even if pointing out a piece of data in a strong tone). Viewing this phenomenon through the lens of King and Sumner's discussion of semantic interpretations based on speakers' voices, it seems that this occurs because judges are more likely to associate female voices with emotion and thus perceive their arguments (when spoken forcefully) as less rational. Likewise, audiences associate male voices with rationality or fact and thus consider them to be less personally attached to their arguments and more rational. (I am reminded of people who see Donald Trump as simply "saying it as it is," as though his often emotionally based speech is rooted in objective truth.)
Similarly, I wonder to what extent perception of speaker characteristics influences how much a judge comprehends or pays attention to a speaker's argument. Sumner and Kataoka's finding that people listen more carefully to people with "prestigious" accents like Southern Standard British English reminded me of my debate team's trip to see the Silicon Valley Oxford Union Debate. Despite myself, I found myself paying more attention to and thinking more deeply about arguments by debaters from Oxford's debating society than those by local students. Given Sumner's conclusion, I would not be surprised if judges, on the one hand, better comprehend and trust arguments made by speakers with prestigious accents, and, on the other hand, are slower to grasp and less likely to trust arguments made by speakers with less prestigious accents. This is particularly concerning, as debates tend to move rapidly (meaning judges must understand arguments made by opposing sides quickly). If judges are spending more of their attention on a particular speaker or team right off the bat, that leaves the other speaker or team at a sore disadvantage.
While I focused this post on my experience in high school debate, I'm sure this relates to many other areas – I'd love to hear your thoughts on similar phenomena, whether in everyday conversation or in the presidential election debates!
You made some very interesting points in your post. After reading Podesva's article about Condolezza Rice's speech, I have some similar questions to yours. As he states, Rice has de-emphasized regionality in her speech and lacks vernacular features of African American English in favor of Standard African American English, which allows her to "construct a public persona that aligns with a professional African American identity." I am wondering if she has constructed this way of speaking because it makes her sound more "prestigious" (like you said) and "trustworthy," like we discussed in class.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post -- I've always wondered how truly "objective" judging a debate round was. There are so many social cues that we subconsciously obtain through someone's speech. It seems as through our biases in gender and socio-economics could play out without particularly meaning to when judging a debate. One study I think would be interesting to conduct to prove or disprove your hypothesis would be to analyze the vocal trends of successful debaters against unsuccessful debaters.
ReplyDeleteI'm really intrigued by your connection of the readings to audience perception in debate. In particular, this makes me think about the most recent presidential debates, where the respective criticisms of Clinton and Trump are definitely shaped through biased perceptions of social categories. Your point about male debaters interrupting their opponents is particularly relevant; Trump's number of interruptions during Clinton's speeches far outweighs her retaliatory interruptions, but the media critiques of "both" candidates' "unprofessionalism" often focus equally on both nominees. With this in mind, how objective can we – or any audience – claim to be as spectators of social speech?
ReplyDeleteCaroline, I believe it is amazing that you brought up this point because I found myself in the same scenario in mock trial as you did in debate. In addition to the fact that I am a female, the fact that I also have a very distinctive accent put me in the position where I had to practice a lot in order for the judges to see beyond my accent and whatever associations they made about Latin women, and actually listen to what I had to say. I had to practice faking my voice, and imitating movie stars on American TVs for my English to sound 'more American'. It is a tough world, I must say.
ReplyDelete