The readings for this week present two separate sides of the tie between phonetic variation and identity: its perception by the listener (Sumner), and its production (Podesva). The hypothesized relation is that the identity of the speaker produced is manifested phonetically, and conversely, that identity is thus perceived when listening to speech, and may in fact affect the mental process of speech perception.
A question which can be asked of this description of speech is at how conscious of a level of cognition does this hold. In other words, how deliberate is the production of identity during speech – take for example the infamous clip of Hillary Clinton exhibiting phonetics characteristic of a southern American speaker when addressing a crowd in the south – or how truly ingrained are our reactions to hearing different kinds of speech?
One observation from the experiment described in the second Sumner reader, which may prompt such inquiry, is when the subjects were asked to rate recordings on a 1-6 scale for features such as "normal," "uptight," or "proper." Not that this question does not challenge the actual results of the study, but we may ask: doesn't asking for a rating on social level prompt a conscious inquiry into associations – which may learned or recognized on a socio-cognitive level, and do not necessarily exist intrinsically or subconsciously? In other words, one subject might think to themselves (perhaps not this explicitly): "I have to rate [x] on a scale of 'proper;' since this is what is asked of me, and I somehow recognize that British English accents are associated with propriety, I will rate highly on the scale." Thus, the subject will recognize that the clip sounds "proper," even if this association does not play a role in actual normal listening or perception of the speech.
We may ask a similar question of the production of speech. It is likely that speakers who diverge from a perceived social norm of speaking will try to conform to it in formal settings, as is evidenced in some in the difference in Rice's speaking during the speech and during the Q&A presented in the reading. Of course, there is a possibility that this process occurs subconsciously, without any particular effort of the speaker; further, there is no reason that these should not depend on the speaker and the context.
Nonetheless, it is an interesting question to consider, and certainly has many applications to how we interact in everyday life.
A question which can be asked of this description of speech is at how conscious of a level of cognition does this hold. In other words, how deliberate is the production of identity during speech – take for example the infamous clip of Hillary Clinton exhibiting phonetics characteristic of a southern American speaker when addressing a crowd in the south – or how truly ingrained are our reactions to hearing different kinds of speech?
One observation from the experiment described in the second Sumner reader, which may prompt such inquiry, is when the subjects were asked to rate recordings on a 1-6 scale for features such as "normal," "uptight," or "proper." Not that this question does not challenge the actual results of the study, but we may ask: doesn't asking for a rating on social level prompt a conscious inquiry into associations – which may learned or recognized on a socio-cognitive level, and do not necessarily exist intrinsically or subconsciously? In other words, one subject might think to themselves (perhaps not this explicitly): "I have to rate [x] on a scale of 'proper;' since this is what is asked of me, and I somehow recognize that British English accents are associated with propriety, I will rate highly on the scale." Thus, the subject will recognize that the clip sounds "proper," even if this association does not play a role in actual normal listening or perception of the speech.
We may ask a similar question of the production of speech. It is likely that speakers who diverge from a perceived social norm of speaking will try to conform to it in formal settings, as is evidenced in some in the difference in Rice's speaking during the speech and during the Q&A presented in the reading. Of course, there is a possibility that this process occurs subconsciously, without any particular effort of the speaker; further, there is no reason that these should not depend on the speaker and the context.
Nonetheless, it is an interesting question to consider, and certainly has many applications to how we interact in everyday life.
No comments:
Post a Comment