Listeners' preferences regarding the regional accent on formal and informal communication context
Preferências dos ouvintes em relação ao sotaque regional em contexto formal e informal de comunicação
Leonardo Wanderley Lopes; Ivonaldo Leidson Barbosa Lima; Eveline Gonçalves Silva; Larissa Nadjara Alves de Almeida; Anna Alice Figueiredo de Almeida
Abstract
Purpose: to analyze the preferences of listeners as the regional accent and accent softened in the context of formal and informal communication.
Methods: three TV news presenter recorded vehiclesphrases in situations of regional and soft accent. The recordings were presented to 105 judges, who heard pairs of words and asked which of the two pronunciations preferred to talk about television news presenters (formal context), for native speakers of the local community (informal context) and to the speech itself (context informal).
Results: the presence of listeners preferred the understated accent in a formal context (presentation of television news in all language variants studied (p< 0.0001) and, on the other hand, preferred the presence of regional accents (p< 0.0001) in informal context. However, speaks for itself, within the informal context, there was a general preference for regional accent or understated, statistical significance only for palatalization of / S / in medial coda (p< 0.0001) and not palatalization of dental (p< 0.0001) , both characteristics of regional accents, and the non- occurrence of monophthongization (p< 0.0001) and matching vowel (p< 0.0001) , characterized as understated accent.
Conclusion: listeners prefer to speaks with an accent softened in a formal communication but prefer the regional accent within an informal context, especially in less educated speakers.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: analisar as preferências dos ouvintes quanto ao sotaque regional e sotaque suavizado em contexto formal e informal de comunicação.
Métodos: três telejornalistas gravaram frases-veículo nas situações de sotaque regional e suavizado. As gravações foram apresentadas a 105 juízes, que escutaram os pares de palavras e responderam qual das duas pronúncias preferiam para a fala de apresentadores de telejornal (contexto formal), para falantes nativos da comunidade local (contexto informal) e para a própria fala (contexto informal).
Resultados: os ouvintes preferiram a presença de sotaque suavizado em contexto formal (apresentação de telejornal em todas as variantes linguísticas estudadas (p<0,0001) e, por outro lado, preferiram a presença de sotaque regional (p<0,0001) em contexto informal. Porém, para a própria fala, dentro do contexto informal, não houve uma preferência geral pelo sotaque regional ou suavizado, havendo significância estatística apenas para palatalização do /S/ em coda medial (p<0,0001) e não palatalização das dentais (p<0,0001), ambas características do sotaque regional, e a não ocorrência de monotongação (p<0,0001) e harmonização vocálica (p<0,0001), caracterizados como sotaque suavizado.
Conclusão: os ouvintes preferem a fala com sotaque suavizado em um contexto formal de comunicação, mas preferem o sotaque regional dentro de um contexto informal, principalmente em falantes menos escolarizados.
Palavras-chave
References
1. Shannon CF, Weaver W. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press; 1949.
2. Pisoni DB. Long-term memory in speech perception: some new findings on talker variability, speaking rate, and perceptual learning. Speech Commun. 1993; 13:109-25.
3. Clopper CG, Pisoni DB. Effects of talker variability on perceptual learning of dialects. Lang Speech. 2004;47(3):207-39.
4. Clopper CG, Pisoni DB. Some acoustic cues for the perceptual categorization of American English regional dialects. J Phon. 2004;32:111-40.
5. Kretzschmar WA. Language variation and complex systems. Am Speech. 2010;85(3):263-86.
6. Clopper CG, Bradlow AR. Free classification of American English dialects by native and non-native listeners. J Phon. 2009 37:436-51.
7. Evans BG, Iverson P. Vowel normalization for accent: An investigation of best exemplar locations in northern and southern British English sentences. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115:352-61.
8. Tamasi SL. Cognitive patterns of linguistic perceptions [Doctoral dissertation]. Athens: University of Georgia; 2003.
9. Williams A, Garret P, Coupland N. Dialect recognition. In: Preston DR. Handbook of perceptual dialectology. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999. p. 369-83.
10. Remez RE, Fellowes JM, Rubin PE. Talker identification based on phonetic information. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1997;23:651-66.
11. Preston DR. Perceptual dialectology: nonlinguistics views of areal linguistics. Providence: Foris; 1989.
12. Preston DR. Five visions of America. Lang Soc. 1986;15:221-40.
13. Campbell-Kibler K. Accent, (ing), and the social logic of listeners perceptions. Am Speech. 2007;82(1):32-64.
14. Eckert P. Variation, convention, and social meaning. Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America; 2005 Jan 6-9; Oakland, CA. Washington: John Benjamins; 2005.
15. Bell A. Language style as audience design. Lang Soc. 1984;13:145-204.
16. Eckert P, Rickford J. Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Standford University, Cambridge Press; 2002.
17. Foulkes P, Docherty G. The social life of phonetics and phonology. J Phon. 2006;34:409-38.
18. Oliva MAA, Serrano MJ. Towards a comprehensive view of variation in language: the absolute variable. Lang Commun. In press, 2011.
19. Campbell-Kibler K. The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Lang Var Change. 2009;21:135-56.
20. Clopper CG, Bradlow AR. Perception of dialect variation in noise: intelligibility and classification. Lang Speech. 2008;51(3):175-98.
21. Fiske ST, Neuberg SL. A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1990;23:1-74.
22. Edwards J. Refining our understanding of language attitudes. J Lang Soc Psychol. 1999;18(1):101-10.
23. Garret P. Attitudes to language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
24. Ferrer RC, Sankoff D. Identity as the primary determinant of language choice in Valencia. J Socioling. 2003;7(1):50-64.
25. Clopper CG, Pisoni DB. Perception of dialect variation: some implications for current research and theory in speech perception. Indiana: Indiana University; 2002. Research on Spoken Language Processing; p. 271-89.
26. Niedzielski N. The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. J Lang Soc Psychol. 1999;18(1):62-85.
27. Battisti E, Hermans B. A palatalização das oclusivas alveolares: propriedades fixas e variáveis. Alfa. 2008;52(2):279-88.
28. Oliveira AM. Inserção e apagamento de [w] em posição de coda: uma análise pela geometria dos traços [dissertação]. Rio de Janeiro: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; 2006.
Submitted date:
09/25/2012
Accepted date:
03/27/2013
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email