This study examines the effect of language attitudes and stereotypes on vowel perceptions by two groups of listeners from Asturias, Spain that differ in their relationship with the languages present in their communities: Spanish, the national majority language, and Asturian, the regional minority language. The responses of 165 participants from the Nalón Valley (a mining area in the region) were compared with those of 156 listeners from Gijón (the largest urban area) as they categorized words containing synthesized productions of Spanish [o] and Asturian [u] in a task that combined binary forced-choice identification and visual priming. The results of a mixed-effects regression model reveal that, for the Nalón Valley group, positive attitudes toward Asturian result in higher rates of /u/ selection, while, for the Gijón group, positive attitudes toward Asturian intersect with negative stereotypes about urban Asturians who avoid the regional language. We propose that spreading activation and weighting in exemplar-based models can account for these different findings: the greater use of Asturian in the Nalón Valley results in weaker and more varied links between vowel exemplars and social properties, limiting the effect of visual priming. However, a heavier weight exists between stereotypes of urban Asturians and Spanish exemplars in the city, resulting in a priming effect in Gijón that does not emerge in the Nalón Valley. We conclude that individual experience, attitudes, and stereotypes work together to condition speech perception uniquely in light of the local context.
BabelM. (2010). Dialect divergence and convergence in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 39(4), 437–456.
2.
BarnesS. (2015). Perceptual salience and social categorization of contact features in Asturian Spanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 8, 213–241. https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2015-0009
3.
BarnesS. (2016a). Negotiating local identity: Rural migration and sociolinguistic perception in urban Asturias. Lengua y migración, 8, 45–77.
BarnesS. (2019). The role of social cues in the perception of final vowel contrasts in Asturian Spanish. In ChappellW. (Ed.), Recent advances in the study of Spanish sociophonetic perception (pp. 16–38). John Benjamins.
Campbell-KiblerK. (2008). I’ll be the judge of that: Diversity in social perceptions of (ING). Language in Society, 27(5), 637–659.
8.
ChappellW. (2016). On the social perception of intervocalic/s/voicing in Costa Rican Spanish. Language Variation and Change, 28(3), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394516000107
9.
ChappellW.BarnesS. (2023). Stereotypes, language, and race: Spaniards’ perception of Latin American immigrants. Journal of Linguistic Geography, 11(2), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2023.5
10.
ChappellW.GarcíaW.MartellR. (2021). The diffusion of sheísmo and perceptions of porteñidad in Buenos Aires Spanish. In Díaz-CamposM. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of variationist approaches to Spanish (pp. 159–170). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429200267-16
11.
ClopperC. G.PisoniD. B. (2004). Homebodies and army brats: Some effects of early linguistic experience and residential history on dialect categorization. Language Variation and Change, 16, 31–48.
12.
D’AndrésR. (1996). Encuestas sociolingüísticas sobre el asturiano. Las variables edad y sexo. Revista de Filología Románica, 13, 371–387.
13.
D’AndrésR. (1997). La llingua asturiana na sociedá. Academia de la Llingua Asturiana.
14.
D’AndrésR. (2002a). Juicios sobre la lengua asturiana. Ámbitu.
DochertyG. J.FoulkesP. (2014). An evaluation of usage-based approaches to the modelling of sociophonetic variability. Lingua, 142, 42–56.
17.
DochertyG. J.FoulkesP.TillotsonJ.WattD. (2006). On the scope of phonological learning: Issues arising from socially-structured variation. In GoldsteinL.WhalenD. H.BestC. T. (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 8 (pp. 393–422). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197211.2.393
18.
DragerK. (2005). From bad to bed: The relationship between perceived age and vowel perception in New Zealand English. Te Reo, 48, 55–68.
19.
DragerK. (2009). A sociophonetic ethnography of Selwyn Girls’ High [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Canterbury.
20.
DragerK.HayJ.WalkerA. (2010). Pronounced rivalries: Attitudes and speech production. Te Reo, 53, 27–53.
21.
DragerK.KirtleyM. J. (2016). Awareness, salience, and stereotypes in exemplar-based models of speech production and perception. In BabelA. (Ed.), Awareness and control in sociolinguistic research (pp. 1–24). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139680448.003
22.
EckertP. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(3), 453–476.
23.
GilesH.CouplandN.CouplandJ. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In GilesH.CouplandN.CouplandJ. (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1–68). Cambridge University Press.
24.
González-QuevedoR. (2001). The Asturian speech community. In TurellM. T. (Ed.), Multilingualism in Spain: Sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic aspects of linguistic minority groups (pp. 165–182). Multilingual Matters.
25.
González-QuevedoR. (2007). La comunidad de lengua asturiana. In TurellM. T. (Ed.), El plurilingüismo en España (pp. 213–230). Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada / Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
HayJ.NolanA.DragerK. (2006). From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review, 23, 351–379. https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.014
28.
HayJ.WarrenP.DragerK. (2006). Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 458–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.10.001
29.
JohnsonK. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar approach. In JohnsonK.MullennixJ. W. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145–166). Academic Press.
30.
JuskanM. (2018). Sound change, priming, salience: Producing and perceiving variation in Liverpool English. Language Science Press.
31.
KirtleyM. J. (2010). Speech in the US military: A sociophonetic perception approach to identity and meaning [Master’s thesis]. University of Hawai’i at Mānoa.
32.
KonvalinkaN. A. (1985). La situación sociolingüística de Asturias. Lletres Asturianes, 16, 29–65.
33.
LacerdaF. (1995). The perceptual-magnet effect: An emergent consequence of exemplar-based phonetic memory. In EleniusK.BranderudP. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIIIth international congress of phonetic sciences, vol. 2 (pp. 140–147). KTH and Stockholm University.
34.
LawrenceD. (2015). Limited evidence for social priming in the perception of the bath and strut vowels. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th international congress of phonetic sciences. University of Glasgow.
35.
Llera RamoF. (2017). III Encuesta sociolingüística de Asturias: Avance de resultados. Academia de la Llingua Asturiana.
36.
MichnowiczJ.RonquestR.ChettyS.GreenG.OliverS. (2023). Spanish in the Southeast: What a swarm of variables can tell us about a newly forming bilingual community. Languages, 8(3), 168. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030168
37.
MunsonB. (2010). Levels of phonological abstraction and knowledge of socially motivated speech-sound variation: A review, a proposal, and a commentary on the papers of Clopper, Pierrehumbert, and Tamati; Drager; Foulkes; Mack; and Smith, Hall, and Munson. Journal of Laboratory Phonology, 1, 157–177.
38.
NiedzielskiN. (1999). The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 62–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X99018001005
39.
NosofskyR. M. (1991). Stimulus bias, asymmetric similarity, and classification. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 94–140.
40.
PeetersG.CzapinskiJ. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 33–60.
41.
PierrehumbertJ. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In BybeeJ.HopperP. J. (Eds.), Frequency effects and emergent grammar (pp. 137–158). John Benjamins.
42.
PierrehumbertJ. B. (2016). Phonological representation: Beyond abstract versus episodic. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2(1), 33–52. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125050
43.
PlichtaB. (2012). Akustyk 1.9: A free Praat plug-in for sociolinguists (computer resource).
44.
PlichtaB.PrestonD. R. (2005). The/ay/s have it: The perception of/ay/as a North-South stereotype in US English. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 37, 107–130.
45.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
46.
SchacterD. L.EichJ. E.TulvingE. (1978). Richard Semon’s theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(6), 721–743.
47.
SquiresL. (2013). It don’t go both ways: Limited bidirectionality in sociolinguistic perception. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(2), 200–237.
48.
Staum CasasantoL. (2010). What do listeners know about sociolinguistic variation?University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected Papers from NWAV, 37(15), 40–49.
49.
StrandE. (1999). Uncovering the role of gender stereotypes in speech perception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X99018001006
50.
Viejo FernándezX. (2004). Asturian: Resurgence and impending demise of a minority language in the Iberian Peninsula. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 170, 169–190.
WalkerM.SzakayA.CoxF. (2019). Can kiwis and koalas as cultural primes induce perceptual bias in Australian English speaking listeners?Laboratory Phonology, 10(1), 7.
53.
WarrenP.HayJ.ThomasB. (2007). The loci of sound change effects in recognition and perception. In ColeJ.HualdeJ. I. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 9 (pp. 87–112). Mouton de Gruyter.
