CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Matched guise effects can be robust to speech style

Tamminga, Meredith·2017·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
DOI 10.1121/1.4990399
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When investigating how listeners evaluate the social meaning of variability in speech, researchers using the Matched Guise Technique (MGT) must decide whether to use read speech or conversational speech stimuli. An MGT experiment comparing social evaluation of /ɪŋ/ ∼ /ɪn/ variation in read and conversational speech styles found no evidence that the social evaluation of this variation differed across frame utterance styles. This suggests that use of read speech stimuli can be an appropriate methodological choice in MGT research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/1.4990399

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 2015, Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4, J. Stat. Softw., 67, 1, 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Campbell-Kibler, K. (2006). “Listener perceptions of sociolinguistic variables: The case of (ING),” dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
  3. 2007, Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions, Am. Speech, 82, 32, 10.1215/00031283-2007-002 · DOI
  4. 2008, I'll be the judge of that: Diversity in social perceptions of (ING), Lang. Soc., 37, 637, 10.1017/S0047404508080974 · DOI
  5. 2009, The nature of sociolinguistic perception, Lang. Var. Change, 21, 135, 10.1017/S0954394509000052 · DOI
  6. 2011, The sociolinguistic variant as a carrier of social meaning, Lang. Var. Change, 22, 423, 10.1017/S0954394510000177 · DOI
  7. 2008, Variation and the indexical field, J. Socioling., 12, 453, 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x · DOI · Paper page
  8. 2001, Assimilation and anticipation in continuous spoken word recognition, J. Mem. Lang., 45, 133, 10.1006/jmla.2000.2764 · DOI
  9. 2011, Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor, J. Socioling., 15, 431, 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00504.x · DOI
  10. 1960, Evaluational reactions to spoken languages, J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 60, 44, 10.1037/h0044430 · DOI
  11. 2014, Categories, stereotypes, and the linguistic perception of sexuality, Lang. Soc., 43, 539, 10.1017/S0047404514000554 · DOI
  12. 2015, Perception, cognition, and linguistic structure: The effect of linguistic modularity and cognitive style on sociolinguistic processing, Lang. Var. Change, 27, 319, 10.1017/S0954394515000149 · DOI
  13. 2014, Indexical meanings of [s+] among Copenhagen youth: Social perception of a phonetic variant in different prosodic contexts, Lang. Soc., 43, 1, 10.1017/S0047404513000857 · DOI
  14. R Core Team, 2015, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
  15. 2013, A phonetic explanation of pronunciation variant effects, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 134, EL26, 10.1121/1.4807432 · DOI
  16. 2014, The socially weighted encoding of spoken words: A dual-route approach to speech perception, Front. Psychol., 4, 1015, 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01015 · DOI
  17. Tamminga, M. (2014). “Persistence in the production of linguistic variation,” dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tamminga, M.
Affiliations
Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania , 3401-C Walnut Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA   tamminga@ling.upenn.edu
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Publisher
Acoustical Society of America (ASA)
Published
2017-07-01
Volume
142
Issue
1
Pages
EL18-EL23
ISSN
  • 0001-4966
  • 1520-8524
DOI
10.1121/1.4990399
Cited by
14
References
0
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review