Can the topic of a conversation, when heavily associated with a particular dialect region, influence how a speaker realizes a linguistic variable? We interviewed fans of English Premier League soccer at a pub in Columbus, Ohio. Nine speakers of British English and eleven speakers of American English were interviewed about their favorite American football and English soccer teams. We present evidence that the soccer fans in this speech community produce variants more consistent with Standard American English when talking about American football than English soccer. Specifically, speakers were overall more /r/-ful (F3 values were lower in rhotic environments) when talking about their favorite American football team. Numeric trends in the data also suggest that exposure to both American and British English, being a fan of both sports, and task may mediate these effects.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with cross random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
2.
BabelM. (2009). Phonetic and social selectivity in phonetic accommodation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
3.
BabelM. (2010). Dialect convergence and divergence in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 39, 437–456.
4.
BarrasC.GeoffroisE.WuZ.LibermanM. (2000). Transcriber: Development and use of a tool for assisting speech corpora production. Speech Communication (Special Issue on Speech Annotation and Corpus Tools), 33, 1–2.
5.
BeckerK. (2009). /r/ and the construction of place identity on New York City’s Lower East Side. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(5), 634–658.
6.
BellA. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145–204.
7.
BlomJ. P.GumperzG. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structure: Code-switching in Norway. In GumperzJ. J.HymesD. (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 407–432). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
8.
BobergC. (2010). The English language in Canada: Status, history and comparative analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.2.12) [Computer software]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Retrieved January 28, 2011. Available from http://www.praat.org/
10.
BourhisR.GilesH. (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In GilesH. (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 119–135). London: Academic Press.
11.
BoyceS.Espy-WilsonC. (1993). Coarticulatory stability in American English /r/. Speech Communications Group Working Papers (RLE/MIT), 9, 80–93.
12.
BoyceS.Espy-WilsonC. (1994). Acoustic differences between ‘bunched’ and ‘retroflex’ variants of American English /r/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 2823–2823.
13.
CouplandN. (1980). Style-shifting in a Cardiff work-setting. Language in Society, 9, 1–12.
14.
DragerK.HayJ.WalkerA. (2010). Pronounced rivalries: Attitudes and speech production. Te Reo, 53, 27–53.
15.
EckertP. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
16.
Ervin-TrippS. (1964). An analysis of the interaction of language, topic and listener. American Anthropologist, 66, 86–102.
17.
FoulkesP.DochertyG. (2006). The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 409–438.
18.
FromontR.HayJ. (2008). ONZE Miner: Development of a browser-based research tool. Corpora, 3(2), 173–193.
19.
GardnerR. C.LambertW. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivations in second-language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
20.
GilesH.PoweslandP. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.
21.
HagiwaraR. (1995). Acoustic realizations of American /r/ as produced by women and men. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 90, 1–187.
22.
HayJ.MaclaganM. (2010). Social and phonetic conditioners on the frequency and degree of ‘intrusive /r/’ In New Zealand English. In PrestonD.NiedzielskiN. (Eds.), A reader in sociophonetics (pp. 41–69). Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs No. 219. New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
23.
JohnsonK. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In JohnsonK.MullennixJ. W. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145–165). San Diego: Academic Press.
24.
JurafskyD.BellA.Fosler-LussierE.GirandC.RaymondW. (1998). Reduction of English function words in Switchboard. Proceedings of ICSLP, 98(7), 3111–3114.
25.
KieslingS. (2009). Style as stance: Can stance be the primary explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation? In JaffeA. (Ed.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on stance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
LabovW. ([1966] 1996). The social stratification of English in New York City (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
LabovW. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
28.
LadefogedP. (1993). A course in phonetics (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich.
29.
LawsonR. (2009). Sociolinguistic constructions of identity among adolescent males in Glasgow. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
30.
LehisteI. (1962). Acoustical characteristics of selected English consonants. Communication Sciences Lab Report, 9, 1–219.
31.
Mendoza-DentonN.HayJ.JannedyS. (2003). Probabilistic sociolinguistics: Beyond variable rules. In BodR.HayJ.JannedyS. (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 97–139). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
NygaardL.LundersE. (2002). Resolution of lexical ambiguity by emotional tone of voice. Memory and Cognition, 30, 583–593.
33.
PiercyC.BritainD. (2011). A cross-dialectal transatlantic perspective on non-prevocalic /r/. Paper presented at NWAV40, Washington DC.
34.
PierrehumbertJ. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In BybeeJ. L.HopperP. (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137–157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
35.
PierrehumbertJ. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In Laboratory Phonology7 (pp. 101–139). New York/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
36.
PierrehumbertJ. (2003). Probabilistic phonology: Discrimination and robustness. In BodR.HayJ.JannedyS. (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 177–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
38.
RickfordJ.McNair-KnoxF. (1994). Addressee—and topic—influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In BiberD.FineganE. (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 235–276). New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
SankoffG. (1972). Language use in multilingual societies: Some alternative approaches. In PrideJ. B.HolmesJ. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 33–51). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
40.
Schilling-EstesN. (2002). Investigating stylistic variation. In ChambersJ. K.TrudgillP.Schilling-EstesN. (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
41.
ScobbieJ. M. (2006). (R) as a variable. In BrownK. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language & linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 337–344). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
42.
SharmaD. (2011). Style repertoire and social change in British Asian English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(4), 464–492.
43.
SiegelJ. (2010). Second dialect acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
StevensK. (1999). Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
WalkerA.HayJ. (2011). Congruence between ‘word age’ and ‘voice age’ facilitates lexical access. Laboratory Phonology, 1(2), 219–237.
46.
Yaeger-DrorM.KempW. (1992). Lexical classes in Montreal French: The case (E:). Language and Speech, 35, 251–294.
