Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Editor's Choice - Free Access

Dialect Interference in Lexical Processing: Effects of Familiarity and Social Stereotypes

Clopper C.

Author affiliations

Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

Corresponding Author

Cynthia G. Clopper

Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University

108A Ohio Stadium East, 1961 Tuttle Park Place

Columbus, OH 43210 (USA)

E-Mail clopper.1@osu.edu

Related Articles for ""

Phonetica 2017;74:25-59

Abstract

Background/Aims: The current study explored the roles of dialect familiarityand social stereotypes in dialect interference effects in a speeded lexical classification task. Methods: Listeners classified the words bad and bed or had and head produced by local Midland and non-local Northern talkers and the words sod and side or rod and ride produced by non-local, non-stereotyped Northern and nonlocal, stereotyped Southern talkers in single- and mixed-talker blocks. Results: Lexical classification was better for the local dialect than for the non-local dialects, and for the stereotyped non-local dialect than for the non-stereotyped non-local dialect. Dialect interference effects were observed for all three dialects, although the patterns of interference differed. For the local dialect, dialect interference was observed for response times, whereas for the non-local dialects, dialect interference was observed primarily for accuracy. Conclusion: These findings reveal complex interactions between indexical and lexical information in speech processing.

© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel



References

  1. Adank P, Evans BG, Stuart-Smith J, Scott SK (2009): Comprehension of familiar and unfamiliar native accents under adverse listening conditions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35:520-529.
  2. Adank P, McQueen JM (2007): The effect of an unfamiliar regional accent on spoken word comprehension. Proc 16th Int Congr Phon Sci, pp 1925-1928.
  3. Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM (2008): Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang 59:390-412.
  4. Ben-Artzi E, Marks LE (1999): Processing linguistic and perceptual dimensions of speech: interactions in speeded classification. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:579-595.
  5. Campbell-Kibler K (2012): Contestation and enregisterment in Ohio's imagined dialects. J Eng Linguist 40:281- 305.
  6. Clark HH (1973): The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav 12:335-359.
  7. Clopper CG (2014): Sound change in the individual: effects of exposure on cross-dialect speech processing. Lab Phonol 5:69-90.
  8. Clopper CG, Bradlow AR (2008): Perception of dialect variation in noise: intelligibility and classification. Lang Speech 51:175-198.
  9. Clopper CG, Carter AK, Dillon CM, Hernandez LR, Pisoni DB, Clarke CM, Harnsberger JD, Herman R (2002): The Indiana Speech Project: an overview of the development of a multi-talker multi-dialect speech corpus. Research on Spoken Language Processing Progress Report No. 25:367-380. Bloomington, Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.
  10. Clopper CG, Pate JK (2008): Effects of talker and token variability on perceptual learning of dialect categories. Proc Meet Acoust 5:1-7.
  11. Clopper CG, Pierrehumbert JB, Tamati TN (2010): Lexical neighborhoods and phonological confusability in crossdialect word recognition in noise. Lab Phonol 1:65-92.
  12. Clopper CG, Pisoni DB, de Jong K (2005): Acoustic characteristics of the vowel systems of six regional varieties of American English. J Acoust Soc Am 118:1661-1676.
  13. Clopper CG, Rohrbeck KL, Wagner L (2012): Perception of dialect variation by young adults with high-functioning autism. J Autism Dev Disord 42:740-754.
  14. Creelman CD (1957): Case of the unknown talker. J Acoust Soc Am 29:655.
  15. Floccia C, Goslin J, Girard F, Konopczynski G (2006): Does a regional accent perturb speech processing? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:1276-1293.
  16. Fox RA, Jacewicz E (2009): Cross-dialectal variation in formant dynamics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 126:2603-2618.
  17. Hay J, Drager K (2010): Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48:865-892.
  18. Hay J, Nolan A, Drager K (2006): From fush to feesh: exemplar priming in speech perception. Linguist Rev 23:351- 379.
  19. Impe L, Geeraerts D, Speelman D (2008): Mutual intelligibility of standard and regional Dutch language varieties. Int J Hum Arts Comput 2:101-117.
  20. Jacewicz E, Fox RA (2012): The effects of cross-generational and cross-dialectal variation on vowel identification and classification. J Acoust Soc Am 131:1413-1433.
  21. Johnson K (1997): Speech perception without speaker normalization: an exemplar model; in Johnson K, Mullennix JW (eds): Talker Variability in Speech Processing. San Diego, Academic Press, pp 145-165.
  22. Johnson K, Strand EA, D'Imperio M (1999): Auditory-visual integration of talker gender in vowel perception. J Phon 27:359-384.
  23. Judd CM, Westfall J, Kenny DA (2012): Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: a new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. J Pers Soc Psychol 103:54-69.
  24. Kinzler KD, DeJesus JM (2013): Northern = smart and Southern = nice: the development of accent attitudes in the United States. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 66:1146-1158.
  25. Labov W, Ash S (1997): Understanding Birmingham; in Bernstein C, Sabino R, Nunnally T (eds): Language Variety in the South Revisited. Tuscaloosa, Alabama University Press, pp 508-573.
  26. Labov W, Ash S, Boberg C (2006): The Atlas of North American English. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.
  27. Larzelere RE, Cox RB Jr, Swindle TM (2015): Many replications do not causal inferences make: the need for critical replications to test competing explanations of nonrandomized studies. Perspect Psychol Sci 10:380-389.
  28. Mason HM (1946): Understandability of speech in noise as affected by region of origin of speaker and listener. Speech Monogr 13:54-68.
  29. Monin B, Oppenheimer DM (2014): The limits of direct replications and the virtues of stimulus sampling. Soc Psychol 45:299-300.
  30. Mullennix JW, Pisoni DB (1990): Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception. Percept Psychophys 47:379-390.
  31. Mullennix JW, Pisoni DB, Martin CS (1989): Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 85:365-378.
  32. Niedzielski N (1999): The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. J Lang Soc Psychol 18:62-85.
  33. Niedzielski N, Preston DR (2000): Folk Linguistics. New York, Mouton de Gruyter.
  34. Nygaard LC, Pisoni DB (1998): Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Percept Psychophys 60:355-376.
  35. Nygaard LC, Sommers MS, Pisoni DB (1994): Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychol Sci 5:42- 46.
  36. Plichta B, Preston DR (2005): The /ay/s have it: the perception of /ay/ as a north-south stereotype in US English. Acta Linguist Hafniensia 37:107-130.
  37. Simons DJ (2014): The value of direct replication. Perspect Psychol Sci 9:76-80.
  38. Souza P, Gehani N, Wright R, McCloy D (2013): The advantage of knowing the talker. J Am Acad Audiol 24:689- 700.
  39. Studebaker GA (1985): A ‘rationalized' arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28:455-462.
  40. Sumner M, Kataoka R (2013): Effects of phonetically-cued talker variation on semantic encoding. J Acoust Soc Am 134:EL485-EL491.
  41. Sumner M, Kim SK, King E, McGowan KB (2014): The socially weighted encoding of spoken words: a dual-route approach to speech perception. Front Psychol 4:1-13.
  42. Sumner M, Samuel AG (2009): The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialect variation. J Mem Lang 60:487-501.
  43. Verbrugge RR, Strange W, Shankweiler DP, Edman TR (1976): What information enables a listener to map a talker's vowel space? J Acoust Soc Am 60:198-212.
  44. Wells GL, Windschitl PD (1999): Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25:1115-1125.
  45. Westfall J, Judd CM, Kenny DA (2015): Replicating studies in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Perspect Psychol Sci 10:390-399.
  46. Wright R, Souza P (2012): Comparing identification of standardized and regionally valid vowels. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55:182-193.

Author Contacts

Cynthia G. Clopper

Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University

108A Ohio Stadium East, 1961 Tuttle Park Place

Columbus, OH 43210 (USA)

E-Mail clopper.1@osu.edu


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: June 16, 2014
Accepted: May 13, 2016
Published online: August 05, 2016
Issue release date: March 2017

Number of Print Pages: 35
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 13

ISSN: 0031-8388 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0321 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHO


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Adank P, Evans BG, Stuart-Smith J, Scott SK (2009): Comprehension of familiar and unfamiliar native accents under adverse listening conditions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35:520-529.
  2. Adank P, McQueen JM (2007): The effect of an unfamiliar regional accent on spoken word comprehension. Proc 16th Int Congr Phon Sci, pp 1925-1928.
  3. Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM (2008): Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang 59:390-412.
  4. Ben-Artzi E, Marks LE (1999): Processing linguistic and perceptual dimensions of speech: interactions in speeded classification. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:579-595.
  5. Campbell-Kibler K (2012): Contestation and enregisterment in Ohio's imagined dialects. J Eng Linguist 40:281- 305.
  6. Clark HH (1973): The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behav 12:335-359.
  7. Clopper CG (2014): Sound change in the individual: effects of exposure on cross-dialect speech processing. Lab Phonol 5:69-90.
  8. Clopper CG, Bradlow AR (2008): Perception of dialect variation in noise: intelligibility and classification. Lang Speech 51:175-198.
  9. Clopper CG, Carter AK, Dillon CM, Hernandez LR, Pisoni DB, Clarke CM, Harnsberger JD, Herman R (2002): The Indiana Speech Project: an overview of the development of a multi-talker multi-dialect speech corpus. Research on Spoken Language Processing Progress Report No. 25:367-380. Bloomington, Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.
  10. Clopper CG, Pate JK (2008): Effects of talker and token variability on perceptual learning of dialect categories. Proc Meet Acoust 5:1-7.
  11. Clopper CG, Pierrehumbert JB, Tamati TN (2010): Lexical neighborhoods and phonological confusability in crossdialect word recognition in noise. Lab Phonol 1:65-92.
  12. Clopper CG, Pisoni DB, de Jong K (2005): Acoustic characteristics of the vowel systems of six regional varieties of American English. J Acoust Soc Am 118:1661-1676.
  13. Clopper CG, Rohrbeck KL, Wagner L (2012): Perception of dialect variation by young adults with high-functioning autism. J Autism Dev Disord 42:740-754.
  14. Creelman CD (1957): Case of the unknown talker. J Acoust Soc Am 29:655.
  15. Floccia C, Goslin J, Girard F, Konopczynski G (2006): Does a regional accent perturb speech processing? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:1276-1293.
  16. Fox RA, Jacewicz E (2009): Cross-dialectal variation in formant dynamics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 126:2603-2618.
  17. Hay J, Drager K (2010): Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48:865-892.
  18. Hay J, Nolan A, Drager K (2006): From fush to feesh: exemplar priming in speech perception. Linguist Rev 23:351- 379.
  19. Impe L, Geeraerts D, Speelman D (2008): Mutual intelligibility of standard and regional Dutch language varieties. Int J Hum Arts Comput 2:101-117.
  20. Jacewicz E, Fox RA (2012): The effects of cross-generational and cross-dialectal variation on vowel identification and classification. J Acoust Soc Am 131:1413-1433.
  21. Johnson K (1997): Speech perception without speaker normalization: an exemplar model; in Johnson K, Mullennix JW (eds): Talker Variability in Speech Processing. San Diego, Academic Press, pp 145-165.
  22. Johnson K, Strand EA, D'Imperio M (1999): Auditory-visual integration of talker gender in vowel perception. J Phon 27:359-384.
  23. Judd CM, Westfall J, Kenny DA (2012): Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: a new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. J Pers Soc Psychol 103:54-69.
  24. Kinzler KD, DeJesus JM (2013): Northern = smart and Southern = nice: the development of accent attitudes in the United States. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 66:1146-1158.
  25. Labov W, Ash S (1997): Understanding Birmingham; in Bernstein C, Sabino R, Nunnally T (eds): Language Variety in the South Revisited. Tuscaloosa, Alabama University Press, pp 508-573.
  26. Labov W, Ash S, Boberg C (2006): The Atlas of North American English. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.
  27. Larzelere RE, Cox RB Jr, Swindle TM (2015): Many replications do not causal inferences make: the need for critical replications to test competing explanations of nonrandomized studies. Perspect Psychol Sci 10:380-389.
  28. Mason HM (1946): Understandability of speech in noise as affected by region of origin of speaker and listener. Speech Monogr 13:54-68.
  29. Monin B, Oppenheimer DM (2014): The limits of direct replications and the virtues of stimulus sampling. Soc Psychol 45:299-300.
  30. Mullennix JW, Pisoni DB (1990): Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception. Percept Psychophys 47:379-390.
  31. Mullennix JW, Pisoni DB, Martin CS (1989): Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 85:365-378.
  32. Niedzielski N (1999): The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. J Lang Soc Psychol 18:62-85.
  33. Niedzielski N, Preston DR (2000): Folk Linguistics. New York, Mouton de Gruyter.
  34. Nygaard LC, Pisoni DB (1998): Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Percept Psychophys 60:355-376.
  35. Nygaard LC, Sommers MS, Pisoni DB (1994): Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychol Sci 5:42- 46.
  36. Plichta B, Preston DR (2005): The /ay/s have it: the perception of /ay/ as a north-south stereotype in US English. Acta Linguist Hafniensia 37:107-130.
  37. Simons DJ (2014): The value of direct replication. Perspect Psychol Sci 9:76-80.
  38. Souza P, Gehani N, Wright R, McCloy D (2013): The advantage of knowing the talker. J Am Acad Audiol 24:689- 700.
  39. Studebaker GA (1985): A ‘rationalized' arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28:455-462.
  40. Sumner M, Kataoka R (2013): Effects of phonetically-cued talker variation on semantic encoding. J Acoust Soc Am 134:EL485-EL491.
  41. Sumner M, Kim SK, King E, McGowan KB (2014): The socially weighted encoding of spoken words: a dual-route approach to speech perception. Front Psychol 4:1-13.
  42. Sumner M, Samuel AG (2009): The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialect variation. J Mem Lang 60:487-501.
  43. Verbrugge RR, Strange W, Shankweiler DP, Edman TR (1976): What information enables a listener to map a talker's vowel space? J Acoust Soc Am 60:198-212.
  44. Wells GL, Windschitl PD (1999): Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25:1115-1125.
  45. Westfall J, Judd CM, Kenny DA (2015): Replicating studies in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Perspect Psychol Sci 10:390-399.
  46. Wright R, Souza P (2012): Comparing identification of standardized and regionally valid vowels. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55:182-193.
Figures

Tables