Past production research on the California Vowel Shift (CVS) has suggested that the CVS carries social meanings of carefreeness, Whiteness, femininity, and privilege (e.g., Eckert 2008b), but it is unclear whether these social meanings reflect listener perceptions. In the present study, Californian listeners heard speech samples, guessed where speakers were from, and rated speakers on language attitudes scales; stimuli in this task were matched guises differing by speakers’ use of two CVS features. The results indicated that listeners associate these features with Californianness, sounding like a Valley girl, and (for male speakers) confidence, complicating the social meanings suggested by production studies. I discuss these results in terms of how interaction context guides the perception of social meaning by activating subsets of the indexical field. This research also introduces two innovative methods for investigating sociolinguistic perception: stimuli created using resynthesized vowels within spontaneous speech produced by multiple speakers, and statistical inference via Bayesian hierarchical modeling.
AghaAsif. 2003. The social life of cultural value. Language & Communication23(3-4). 231-273.
2.
BoersmaPaulWeeninkDavid. 2015. Praat [phonetic analysis software]. Version 5.4.01, retrieved Nov 2014 from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
3.
BucholtzMaryBermudezNancyFungVictorEdwardsLisaVargasRosalva. 2007. Hella Nor Cal or totally So Cal? The perceptual dialectology of California. Journal of English Linguistics35(4). 325-352.
4.
Campbell-KiblerKathryn. 2007. Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech82(1). 32-64.
5.
Campbell-KiblerKathryn. 2009. The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Language Variation and Change21(1). 135-156.
6.
D’OnofrioAnnette. 2015. Persona-based information shapes linguistic perception: Valley Girls and California vowels. Journal of Sociolinguistics19(2). 241-256.
7.
D’OnofrioAnnetteEckertPenelopePodesvaRobert J.PrattTeresaVan HofwegenJanneke. 2016. The low vowels in California’s Central Valley. In FridlandValerieEvansBetsyKendallTylerWassinkAlicia (eds.), Speech in the western states, vol. 1, 11-32. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
8.
Dailey-O’CainJennifer. 2000. The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics4(1). 60-80.
9.
EagerChristopher D.RoyJoseph. 2017. Mixed models are sometimes terrible. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America, Austin, TX.
10.
EckertPenelope. 2000. Linguistic variation as social practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
11.
EckertPenelope. 2008a. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics12(4). 453-476.
12.
EckertPenelope. 2008b. Where do ethnolects stop?International Journal of Bilingualism12(1-2). 25-42.
13.
EckertPenelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology41(1). 87-100.
14.
FoughtCarmen. 1999. A majority sound change in a minority community: /u/-fronting in Chicano English. Journal of Sociolinguistics3(1). 5-23.
15.
FridlandValerieBartlettKathrynKreuzRoger. 2004. Do you hear what I hear? Experimental measurement of the perceptual salience of acoustically manipulated vowel variants by Southern speakers in Memphis, TN. Language Variation and Change16(1). 1-16.
16.
FridlandValerieKendallTylerEvansBetsyWassinkAlicia (eds.). 2016. Speech in the western states, vol. 1. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
GumperzJohn J.1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
KennedyRobertGramaJames. 2012. Chain shifting and centralization in California vowels: An acoustic analysis. American Speech87(1). 39-56.
20.
Kewley-PortDianeWatsonCharles S.1994. Formant-frequency discrimination for isolated English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America95(485). 485-496.
21.
KimballAmelia E.ShantzKailenEagerChristopher D.RoyJoseph. Forthcoming. Beyond maximal random effects for logistic regression: Moving past convergence problems.
22.
KruschkeJohn K.2015. Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. 2nd edn.London: Academic Press.
23.
LabovWilliam. 2010. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 3, Cognitive and cultural factors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
24.
LabovWilliamAshSharonBobergCharles. 2006. The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
25.
LabovWilliamAshSharonRavindranathMayaWeldonTraceyBaranowskiMaciejNagyNaomi. 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics15(4). 431-463.
26.
MontelloDaniel R.FriedmanAlindaPhillipsDaniel W.2014. Vague cognitive regions in geography and geographic information science. International Journal of Geographical Information Science28(9). 1802-1820.
27.
NiedzielskiNancy. 1999. The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology18(1). 62-85.
28.
PharaoNicolaiMaegaardMarieMøllerJanus SpindlerKristiansenTore. 2014. Indexical meanings of [s+] among Copenhagen youth: Social perception of a phonetic variant in different prosodic contexts. Language in Society43(1). 1-31.
29.
PlummerMartyn.2003. JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling [Computer program]. Version 4.0.0, retrieved Oct 2015 from http://mcmc-jags.sourceforge.net/
30.
PodesvaRobert J.2011. The California Vowel Shift and gay identity. American Speech86(1). 32-51.
31.
PrattTeresaD’OnofrioAnnette. 2014. Awareness in enregisterment: Performance of the California Vowel Shift in SNL’s “The Californians.”Paper presented at NWAV 43, Chicago, IL.
32.
PrestonDennis R.1996. Whaddayaknow? The modes of folk linguistic awareness. Language Awareness5(1). 40-74.
33.
PrestonDennis R.2011. Language, people, salience, space: Perceptual dialectology and language regard. Dialectologia5. 87-131.
34.
R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer program]. Version 3.2.2, retrieved Aug 2015 from https://www.R-project.org/
35.
SchillingNatalie. 2013. Investigating stylistic variation. In ChambersJ. K.SchillingNatalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 327-349. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
36.
SoukupBarbara. 2013. Austrian dialect as a metonymic device: A cognitive sociolinguistic investigation of Speaker Design and its perceptual implications. Journal of Pragmatics52. 72-82.
TylerJoseph C.2015. Expanding and mapping the indexical field: Rising pitch, the uptalk stereotype, and perceptual variation. Journal of English Linguistics43(4). 284-310.
39.
VillarrealDan. 2016a. The construction of social meaning: A matched-guise investigation of the California Vowel Shift. Davis, CA: University of California, Davis, PhD dissertation.
40.
VillarrealDan. 2016b. “Do I sound like a Valley Girl to you?” Perceptual dialectology and language attitudes in California. In FridlandValerieKendallTylerEvansBetsyWassinkAlicia (eds.), Speech in the western states, vol. 1, 55-75. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
41.
WarrenRonFulopSean A.2014. The merged vowel of PIN and PEN in Bakersfield, CA. Paper presented at the 167th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Providence, RI.
42.
WatsonKevinClarkLynn. 2013. How salient is the nurse~square merger?English Language and Linguistics17(2). 297-323.
43.
WellsJohn C.1982. Accents of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
WilliamsAngieGarrettPeterCouplandNikolas. 1999. Dialect recognition. In PrestonDennis R. (ed.), Handbook of perceptual dialectology, vol. 1, 345-358. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
