The readings this week had to do with priming, the performance of language, and the combined linguistic and social effect of spoken words. The first Sumner article discussed how social information is quickly latched onto in the initial stages of hearing speech, and triggers certain representations. This leads to confusion when there's a disconnect between one's expectations and the content of the speech; for instance, one is likely to recognize happy words more quickly when they're delivered with a happy tone rather than a sad one. The process would look something like this: We hear speech, we glean social information from tone/social cues/accent, we form expectations while analyzing the content of this speech. If they clash, then it's harder to process.
We could consider the results of the King/Sumner through the lens of this process. In this study, participants were asked to respond and make associations of words spoken by two speakers: M, a young white woman, and J, an older African American man. There was less differentiation between the responses to words spoken by M than J, which the study suggests could be due to a difference in priming. If participants are more used to a voice like M's, then the expectations, and as a result associations, of certain spoken words, will be similar, whereas unfamiliar voices do not invoke as much priming.
In this light, I also found the Podesva article on Condoleezza Rice very interesting, as it began with several details about Rice's background which would suggest certain phonetic behaviour. However, it also stated: "To be clear, we do not predict that Rice will produce all or even most of
the features that characterize these groups." And, in fact, they found that Rice did not produce most of these features, but instead was standardized, her vowel production the very "picture of standardness." If the researchers had not included the caveat about predictions, it would have very well reflected the surprise noted above, raised by the difference between expectations and reality. I, for one, was surprised.
(As a side note, I was also intrigued by the discussion of these findings; that Rice's changing dialect reflected, in some way, the American Dream? I'm not sure what to make of that.)
I think the comment about the "American Dream" in regards to Rice's speech patterns was referencing how her many different backgrounds all culminated in a speech pattern typical of someone who is highly educated (and therefore successful). However, I'm not entirely convinced by the idea that the American Dream has a particular way of speaking associated with it.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the standardization of Rice's speech patterns was related to her involvement in politics. I could imagine it being related as either a cause or an effect of political involvement. For instance, it might have been because of her standard accent that she was so politically successful, as it made her widely relatable. On the contrary, she may have started a career in politics with phonetic variations as predicted by the experiment and moved towards standard patterns as a result of political activity.
ReplyDeleteInteresting how the papers are surprising for different reasons. The Sumner article mentioned surprise playing a role in directing attention less effectively than an expected voice. By controlling elements of her speech, Rice can make use of this element of expectation in speech and make her words more listened-to.
ReplyDeleteI think it's very interesting how you managed to pick up on the fact that there might be an error in the data, that the people used in studies may not have been selected for correctly. Furthermore, I think that we can say that Rice's changing speech patters are the way to the American dream if we achieve or move past the prejudices and social biases that we have discussed, and Rickford mentioned
ReplyDelete