Identification of Language Varieties

Abstract

Three experiments are described investigating the role of different linguistic levels in the identification of language varieties. The results reveal that prosodic features play a minor role in the identification of language varieties, both in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands. The role of pronunciation varies. In some cases, pronunciation alone leads to better identification than cues at all linguistic levels, including pronunciation. Further research is needed to gain insight into the precise nature of the processes underlying the identification of language varieties. Also, the role of identification of language varieties in relation to vocal stereotypes in the attribution of personality characteristics to speakers should be further investigated.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boets, H. , & De Schutter, G. (1977). Verstaanbaarheid en appreciatie: Nederlandse dialecten uit België zoals inwoners van Duffel die ervaren [Comprehensibility and appreciation: Dutch dialects from Belgium as inhabitants of Duffel experience them]. Taal en Tongval, 29, 156-177.

Doelemans, R. (1998). Native reactions to nonnative speech. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University, the Netherlands.

Douglas-Cowie, E. , Cowie, R. , & Rahilly, J. (1995). The social distribution of intonation patterns in Belfast. In J. W. Lewis (Ed.), Studies in general and English phonetics (pp. 180-186). London: Routledge.

Esling, J. H. (1978). Voice quality in Edinburgh—A sociolinguistic and phonetic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.

Giles, H. (1970). Evaluative reactions to accents. Educational Review, 22, 211-227.

Gooskens, C. (1997). On the role of prosodic and verbal information in the perception of Dutch and English language varieties. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Gooskens, C. , & Rietveld, T. (1995). Een akoestisch-perceptief onderzoek naar de Maastrichtse tonen [An acoustic-perceptual examination of Maastricht lexical tones]. Gramma/TTT, 1, 17-33.

Moulines, E. , & Verhelst, W. (1995). Time-domain and frequency-domain techniques for prosodic modification of speech. In W. B. Kleijn & K. K. Paliwal (Eds.), Speech coding and synthesis (pp. 519-556). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Pellowe, J. , & Jones, V. (1978). On intonational variability in Tyneside speech. In P. Trudgill (Ed.), Sociolinguistic patterns in British English (pp. 101-121). London: Edward Arnold.

10.

Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

11.

van Bezooijen, R. (1988). The relative importance of pronunciation, prosody, and voice quality for the attribution of social status and personality characteristics. In R. van Hout & U. Knops (Eds.), Language attitudes in the Dutch language area (pp. 85-103). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.

12.

van Bezooijen, R. (1994). Aesthetic evaluation of Dutch language varieties. Language and Communication, 14, 253-263.

13.

van Bezooijen, R. , & Ytsma, J. (in press). Accents of Dutch: Personality impression, divergence, and identifiability. Belgian Journal of Linguistics.

14.

Van Hout, R. , & Münstermann, H. (1981). Linguistische afstand, dialekt en attitude [Linguistic distance, dialect, and attitude]. Gramma, 5, 101-123.

15.

Verhoeven, J. (1992). Fonetische kenmerken van sleepen stoottoon in het dialect van Weert [Phonetic characteristics of drawling and checking accent in the dialect of Weert]. Taal en Tongval, 44, 140-155.