Article published in:
25 years of Intelligibility, Comprehensibility and AccentednessEdited by John M. Levis, Tracey M. Derwing and Murray J. Munro
[Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 6:3] 2020
► pp. 483–504
Investigating the relationship between comprehensibility and social evaluation
Charlotte Vaughn | University of Oregon
Aubrey Whitty | University of Oregon
The processing fluency hypothesis proposes that listeners’ perceived difficulty processing the speech of L2 speakers
(called comprehensibility/processing fluency) leads them to downgrade those speakers socially. In this
paper, we investigate this relationship, focusing on context-specificity. L1-English listeners provided comprehensibility and social
evaluation ratings of L1-Korean speakers speaking English, while an orthographic depiction of the speech either appeared alongside the audio
or did not, a manipulation aiming to affect comprehensibility. Varying orthography between subjects, Experiment 1 found that orthography
resulted in greater comprehensibility, but not more positive social evaluations. Experiment 2 manipulated orthography within subjects,
varying context: orthography trials were presented first or last. Comprehensibility and social evaluation ratings were related only when
orthography was first, suggesting a conditional, asymmetrical relationship where listeners more readily downgrade than upgrade the same
speaker when orthography changes. Our results highlight the context-dependent nature of these constructs, limiting the generalizability of
the processing fluency hypothesis.
Keywords: social evaluation, status, solidarity, comprehensibility, processing fluency
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Social evaluation and comprehensibility/processing fluency
- 1.2The present study
- 2.Experiment 1
- 2.1Materials and methods
- 2.1.1Materials
- 2.1.2Procedure
- 2.1.3Participants
- 2.2Results
- 2.2.1Manipulation check
- 2.2.2Focal analyses
- 2.3Discussion
- 2.1Materials and methods
- 3.Experiment 2
- 3.1Materials and methods
- 3.1.1Materials
- 3.1.2Procedure
- 3.1.3Participants
- 3.2Results
- 3.2.1Manipulation check
- 3.2.2Focal analyses
- 3.3Discussion
- 3.1Materials and methods
- 4.General discussion
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
Published online: 10 September 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20022.vau
https://doi.org/10.1075/jslp.20022.vau
References
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M.
Bradlow, A. R. & Alexander, J. A.
Brennan, E. M. & Brennan, J. S.
Bresnahan, M. J., Ohashi, R., Nebashi, R., Liu, W. Y., & Shearman, S. M.
Cardoso, A., Levon, E., Sharma, D., Watt, D., & Ye, Y.
De Meo, A., Vitale, M., Pettorino, M. & Martin, P.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J.
Dixon, J. A., & Mahoney, B.
Dragojevic, M.
Dragojevic, M., & Giles, H.
Dragojevic, M., Giles, H., Beck, A. C., & Tatum, N. T.
Giles, H., & Rakić, T.
Gluszek, A., & Dovidio, J. F.
Hall-Lew, L., Paiva Couceiro, I., & Fairs, A.
Hosoda, M., & Stone-Romero, E.
Hu, G., & Lindemann, S.
Ingvalson, E. M., Lansford, K. L., Federova, V., & Fernandez, G.
Ingvalson, E. M., Lansford, K. L., Fedorova, V., & Fernandez, G.
Kang, O., & Rubin, D. L.
Klein, N., & O’Brien, E.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B.
Lev-Ari, S., & Keysar, B.
Levis, J.
Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L.
Lindemann, S.
Lindemann, S., & Subtirelu, N.
Lippi-Green, R.
Lüdecke, D.
McGowan, K. B.
McLaughlin, D. J., Baese-Berk, M. M., Bent, T., Borrie, S. A., & Van Engen, K. J.
McLaughlin, D. J., & Van Engen, K. J.
Munro, M. J.
Munro, M. J. & Derwing, T. M.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M.
Nagle, C., Trofimovich, P., & Bergeron, A.
Ogden, D.
Ryan, E. B., Carranza, M. A. and Moffie, R. W.
Ryan, E. B., Giles, H., & Sebastian, R. J.
Souza, A. L., & Markman, A. B.
Sparks, J., & Ledgerwood, A.
Stocker, L.
Sumner, M. and Kataoka, R.
Sumner, M., Kim, S. K., King, E., & McGowan, K. B.
Taylor Reid, K., Trofimovich, P., & O’Brien, M. G.
Tzeng, C. Y., Alexander, J. E., Sidaras, S. K., Nygaard, L. C.
Van Engen, K. J., Baese-Berk, M. M., Baker, R. E., Choi, A., Kim, M., & Bradlow, A. R.
Vaughn, C.
Vaughn, C., & Baese-Berk, M.