Advantage Accented? Listener Differences in Understanding Speech in Noise

Cross dialectal communication results in poorer performance than within-dialect communication in a variety of listening tasks. However, some listeners appear to be less affected than others, and this paper explores the factors behind interlistener variation in a listening in noise task. 63 native speakers of American English transcribed 120 HINT sentences, which were presented mixed with noise at -3dB SNR. The sentences had been recorded by six young males: two speakers of Standard American English (SAE), two speakers of Southern American English (STH), and two non-native, L1-Chinese speakers (NNS). Participants were asked to transcribe what they heard as best they could, and were scored on keywords correct. While everyone did much worse with NNS than SAE and STH, participants who self-reported being accented did significantly significantly better with STH (and trend better with NNS) than those who reported being unaccented. Additionally, participants who reported being in a good mood did significantly better with SAE sentences than speakers who reported being in a bad mood. Finally, there was a main effect of extraversion, such that extraverts did worse overall than introverts. The results suggest that individual differences account for some of the interlistener variation in cross-dialectal listening task, and exploring these metrics further may help us understand the cognitive mechanisms involved in processing unfamiliar dialects

The Effect of Talker Identity on Dialect Processing

Recent work has suggested that bilingual listeners use the visual identity of the talker to form expectations about the language the talker will use, which then facilitates lexical processing. In the current study, we extend this work to see if there are analogous effects of talker identity on dialect processing, and whether the impact of talker identity depends on the regional background of the listener. Six actresses recorded stimuli in two dialectal guises, performing Southern US accents and standardized, regionally nonspecific US accents. Participants were introduced to the actresses via video as having one particular dialect type (familiarization), and then later did an audio-visual lexical decision task (test) where some trials would be dialectally congruent and some trials would be dialectally incongruent with their earlier experience of that talker. US English listeners from both Southern and non-Southern dialect regions participated. Listeners who self-reported having (Southern) accents were impacted by talker dialect congruence, performing best with a given dialect when it matched their experience of that talker. However, other listeners were not impacted by congruency, performing better with standardized tokens regardless. This mirrors findings in bilingualism research that early bilinguals are more sensitive to talker language pairing than monolinguals or late bilinguals. We ran three additional conditions without video and/or without a familiarization stage to confirm the importance of each component to observing the effect. Generally, without familiarization, Southern US listeners performed worse with Southern vs. standardized tokens, suggesting that without strong contextual cues indicating otherwise, these listeners may expect standardized tokens in experimental settings. There is some evidence that all listeners were somewhat sensitive to talker identity even from voice alone

Apparent time and network effects on long-term cross-dialect accommodation among college students

College is believed to be a time of linguistic change, particularly due to cross-dialect mixing (Bigham 2010, Evans and Iverson 2007). We examine apparent time change in the read speech of 109 white college students from Ohio in three features of the Northern Cities Shift: TRAP fronting/raising (F2-F1), LOT fronting (F2) and lowering/backing (F2-F1) of KIT and DRESS. We also examined the monophthongization of PRICE, a feature of Southern speech. We find two results that suggest tentative support for long-term accommodation: an effect of self-reported regional network on TRAP in northern Ohioans and an interaction between year of school and self-reported regional network on PRICE among southern Ohioans. However, no effects of apparent time through college are observed, leaving open the possibility that the effects observed, if real, are trigger by identity factors rather than exposure

“Say it Loud, I’m Black and Proud:” The Effectiveness of Racial Acknowledgments at Work

Research underscores engagement in identity management strategies as an effective way to reduce workplace discrimination, particularly subtle forms of discrimination. The aim of the current study is to examine the use and effectiveness of different methods of the specific identity management strategy of acknowledging race as a way to reduce workplace discrimination and lead to other positive outcomes for Black individuals. A sample of Black and White individuals with professional work experience participated in an online vignettebased survey. Participants read four short vignettes involving race in the workplace and responded to a series of questions assessing usage of various acknowledgment strategies, affective outcomes, and perceptions of effectiveness. Results revealed that Black individuals reported acknowledging their race to a greater extent than did White individuals, and Black people reported positive benefits of affirming race and using humor to discuss their race. Finally, Black participants found racial acknowledgments to be more effective than White participants. Implications and future directions are discussed

Ideologies of Intelligibility Onscreen: The Sociolinguistics of Intralingual Subtitling

Intralingual subtitling—specifically, translation of audio in one language into non-optional text of the same language—can be used when a speaker’s dialect is considered difficult for target audiences to understand. Thus, these subtitles and the commentary surrounding them offer insights into ideologies of within-language intelligibility. In the present study, we investigate such ideologies from two approaches: by documenting how intralingual subtitles are being used in practice in two reality-based, US cooking shows, and by looking at published complaints about intralingual subtitles (primarily in US/UK English contexts). We find more subtitles for L2-English vs. L1-English speakers in the shows, and metacommentary around subtitling similarly suggests that L1-English subtitling is perceived as more salient and offensive, reflecting broader associations of unintelligibility with non-native speech. The use of subtitles for L1 English outside of noisy environments appears to be limited to certain varieties, such as Scottish or Indian English, suggesting that some L1 varieties of English can be acceptably codified as unintelligible. While the purpose of intralingual subtitles is ostensibly to facilitate communication and have been framed in the literature as tools for breaking down boundaries, both the practice and commentary around these subtitles highlight the largely negative connotations of marking someone as unintelligible

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (No. 12-417), 2012 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 4304

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the period of time during which a covered employee must be paid begins when the worker engages in a principal activity. Donning and doffing safety gear (including protective clothing) required by the employer is a principal activity when it is an integral and indispensable part of the activities for which the worker is employed. Such requirements are common in manufacturing firms. However, under section 203(o) of the Act an employer need not compensate a worker for time spent in “changing clothes” (even if it is a principal activity) if that time is expressly excluded from compensable time under a bona fide collective bargaining agreement applicable to that worker. The interrelated questions presented are: (1) What constitutes “changing clothes” within the meaning of section 203(o)? (2) If a worker’s actions are a principal activity but fall within the scope of the section 203(o) exemption, do those actions nonetheless commence the period of time during which (aside from the clothes-changing time) the worker must be compensated? (3) If a worker engages in a principal activity which is not exempted by section 203(o), but which involves only a de minimis amount of time, does the activity nonetheless commence the period of time during which the worker must be compensated