Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 13:1 (2015) ► pp.59–80

Accent-induced coder bias

Recent research has shown that speech perception can easily be influenced by the overall accent of the speaker. This paper investigates whether such accentinduced bias also occurs in speech transcription by professional and linguistically trained coders and to what extent such a bias may affect linguistic analyses. We compare the transcriptions of the Bären vowel in Standard German with the acoustic values of these vowels, as well as sociolinguistic analyses based on both of these. The results of the two analyses turn out to be considerably different. Further examination shows that the coders only partly relied on the acoustic values. The residual does not consist of random errors, but correlate with the degree of accentedness of the speakers. We conclude that this accent-induced coder bias led the coders to transcribe the codings according to their expectations about the pronunciation in the local dialect – expectations that were quite different from the acoustic reality.

Keywords: Bären vowel, transcription, accent, perception, bias, social indexicality
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 23 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.03slo
References
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D
(2010) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. [computer program].Google Scholar
Brennan, E.M., & Brennan, J.S
(1981) Accent scaling and language attitudes: Reactions to Mexican American English speech. Language and Speech, 24(3), 207–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L
(1999) Usage-based phonology. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, 11, 211–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christy, A.L
(2010) The effects of explicit knowledge of and implicit attitudes about race on adult perceptions of children’s speech. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L.J
(1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., Eisner, F., McQueen, J.M., & Norris, D
(2010) How abstract phonemic categories are necessary for coping with speaker-related variation. Laboratory Phonology, 101, 91–111.Google Scholar
Drager, K
(2005) From bad to bed: The relationship between perceived age and vowel perception in New Zealand English. Te Reo, 481, 55–68.Google Scholar
(2010) Sociophonetic variation in speech perception. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(7), 473–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Speaker age and vowel perception. Language and Speech, 54(1), 99–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Boersma, P., Rauber, A.S., & Bion, R.A.H
(2009) A cross-dialect acoustic description of vowels: Brazilian and European Portuguese RID E-6746-2011. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(3), 1379–1393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, K.E
(2012) Unpacking listener bias: The effects of attitudes, knowledge, and experience on clinician’s ratings of African-American children’s speech. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Giles, H
(1973) Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 151, 87–105.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, L., & Fix, S
(2012) Perceptual coding reliability of (L)-vocalization in casual speech data. Lingua, 122(7), 794–809. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, J., & Drager, K
(2010) Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics, 48(4), 865–892. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, J., Nolan, A., & Drager, K
(2006) From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review, 23(3), 351–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, J., Warren, P., & Drager, K
(2006) Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics, 34(4), 458–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heeringa, W., & Hinskens, F
(2014) Convergence between dialect varieties and dialect groups in the Dutch language area. In B. Szmrecsanyi & B. Wälchli (Eds.), Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech (pp. 26–52). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinskens, F., & van Oostendorp, M
(2009) Sources of phonological variation in a large database for Dutch dialects. In S. Tsiplakou, M. Karyolemou, & P.Y. Pavlou (Eds.), Language variation-European perspectives II: Selected papers from the 4th international conference on language variation in Europe (ICLaVE 4), Nicosia, June 2007 (pp. 103–118). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hove, I
(2002) Die Aussprache der Standardsprache in der deutschen Schweiz. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huesmann, A
(1998) Zwischen Dialekt und Standard: Empirische Untersuchung zur Soziolinguistik des Varietätenspektrums im deutschen. Tübingen, Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, O., & Rubin, D.L
(2009) Reverse linguistic stereotyping: Measuring the effect of listener expectations on speech evaluation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28(4), 441–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klausmann, H
(1985) Die breisgauer Mundarten. Teil 1. Textband. Marburg: N.G. Elwert Verlag.Google Scholar
König, W
(1989) Atlas zur Aussprache des Schriftdeutschen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ismaening: Max Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K.D., Shutts, K., Dejesus, J., & Spelke, E.S
(2009) Accent trumps race in guiding children’s social preferences. Social Cognition, 27(4), 623–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W
(1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
(2006) The social stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Löffler, H
(1994) Germanistische Soziolinguistik. Berlin: Ehrich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Mangold, M
(1994) Duden Aussprachewörterbuch. Mannheim: Duden Verlag.Google Scholar
Munro, M.J., Derwing, T.M., & Flege, J.E
(1999) Canadians in Alabama: A perceptual study of dialect acquisition in adults. Journal of Phonetics, 27(4), 385–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niedzielski, N
(1999) The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(1), 62–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noth, H
(1993) Alemannisches Dialekthandbuch vom Kaiserstuhl und seiner Umgebung. Freiburg i. Br: Schillinger Verlag.Google Scholar
(1996) Breisgauer Alemannische Kurzgrammatik. Freiburg: Verein zur Förderung der Landeskunde an den Schulen e.V.Google Scholar
Palmeri, T.J., Goldinger, S.D., & Pisoni, D.B
(1993) Episodic encoding of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 309–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J.B
(2001) Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. Typological Studies in Language, 451, 137–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietraszewski, D., & Schwartz, A
(2014) Evidence that accent is a dimension of social categorization, not a byproduct of perceptual salience, familiarity, or ease-of-processing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(1), 43–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preston, D.R
(1993) Folk dialect maps. In A.W. Glowka & D.M. Lance (Eds.), Language variation in North American English: Research and teaching (pp. 333–377). New York: Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team
(2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rakić, T., Steffens, M.C., & Mummendey, A
(2011) Blinded by the accent! the minor role of looks in ethnic categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 16–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Repp, B.H., & Liberman, A.M
(1987) Phonetic category boundaries are flexible. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition (89–112). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, D.L
(1992) Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates’ judgments of nonnative english-speaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 33(4), 511–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sloos, M
(2012) Standard or dialect? A new online elicitation method. Dialectologia, 91, 98–113.Google Scholar
(2013a) Frequency and phonological grammar: An integrated approach. evidence from German, Indonesian, and Japanese. PhD dissertation. University of Groningen.
(2013b) Halo! don’t always trust the native speaker. In C. Conlan (Ed.), Evolving paradigms: Language and applied linguistics in a changing world (pp. 325–350). Perth: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.Google Scholar
Spiekermann, H
(2008) Sprache in Baden-Württemberg: Merkmale des regionalen Standards. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stearns, M.J., & Voge, W
(1979) The contemporary pronunciation of long in Modern Standard German: A data-based, computer-assisted analysis. In J. Köster (Ed.), Hamburger Phonetische Beiträge. Untersuchungen zur Phonetik und Linguistik. Miszellen VI (pp. 127–181). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Steger, H
(1989) Südwestdeutscher Sprachatlas. Marburg: Elwert.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, H
(1990) Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(1), 97–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Bezooijen, R., & van Heuven, V
(2010) Avant-garde Dutch: A perceptual, acoustic and evaluational study. In D.R. Preston, & N.A. Niedzielski (Eds.), A reader in sociophonetics (pp. 357–378). New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Veer, B. van der
(2006) The Italian ‘mobile diphthongs’: A test case for experimental phonetics and phonological theory. PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
van Heugten, M., & Johnson, E.K
(2014) Learning to contend with accents in infancy: Benefits of brief speaker exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 340–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Heuven, V., van Bezooijen, R., & Edelman, L
(2005) Pronunciation of /ɛi/ in avant-garde Dutch: A cross–sex acoustic study. In M. Filppula, J. Klemola, M. Palander, & E. Penttila (Eds.), Dialects across borders (pp. 185–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Heuven, V., & van der Veer, B
(2003) Speech shadowing as an elicitation technique in variation research: The case of the Italian mobile diphthongs. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences , Barcelona (pp. 2805–2808).
Wiesinger, P
(1970) Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten. I. die Langvokale im Hochdeutschen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Garrett, P., & Coupland, N
(1999) Dialect recognition. In D. Preston (Ed.), Handbook of perceptual dialectology (pp. 345–358). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Sloos, Marjoleine, Andrea Ariza García, Alexandra Andersson & Mathea Neijmeijer
2019. Accent-induced bias in linguistic transcriptions. Language Sciences 76 ► pp. 101176 ff. DOI logo
Sloos, Marjoleine & Wang Lei
2018. Same stimuli, same subjects, different perception. Asia-Pacific Language Variation 4:2 ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.