The phonetic side of identity

The readings for this week explored how phonetic variation can influence the perception of language. When an individual hears a word, there tends to be an immediate representation of that word in the individual’s mind, usually with other associated words. A given person hears a vast amount of pronunciations for the same word, and so it appears there are clusters of phonetic input that can trigger the same reaction. However, does phonetic variation possibly affect these semantic associations? The article by King and Sumner explores this exact question, and the findings reveal a phonetic influence. The word princess spoken with an adult’s British accent will have different association than the word princess spoken with a child’s “American” accent. These associations innately tie differences in the listener’s mind to the speaker. Since semantic differences are associated with different voices, questions about the phonetic influence on identity result from these findings.

Through a case study of Condoleezza Rice, the article by Podesva, et. al. explores some of these questions of identity. They studied the multitude of potential sociolinguistic influences by looking at the vocalic, consonantal, and rhythmic characteristics of Rice’s voice. The traditional “southern shift” in vowels, especially the pin-pen merger, phonetically indicates that Rice is a Southerner. The glottalized /-d/ and vocalized /-r/ indicates that she is African American. The specific pronunciation of Iraq indicates that she is a conservative. All of these phonetic indications are true about Rice. However, the article indicates that the lack of many other traditional qualities associated with her identities may exist because of her variety of backgrounds, as well as her higher degree of education. Identities can be seen through Rice’s voice.

Podesva goes on to explain how the ambiguities in certain phonetic characters actually do confirm her variety of backgrounds. However, I question this claim. Since there’s so much ambiguity, couldn’t the same phonetic characteristics come from an individual with a different mix of a variety of backgrounds? Are phonetic indicators therefore only accurate for people who come from a homogenous phonetic environment? There seems to be benefits in identifying phonetic markers that can signal a person’s background, but these associations may also just perpetuate stereotypes. I’m conflicted.