BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:English dialects: Geographical perceptions\, language regard\, and
  listener reactions - Dr Chris Montgomery (University of Sheffield)
DTSTART:20160526T150000Z
DTEND:20160526T163000Z
UID:TALK62084@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Theodora Alexopoulou
DESCRIPTION:This paper will focus on non-linguists’ regard (Preston 2010
 ) of English dialects. It will start with a discussion of the perceptual d
 ialectology of the country\, and briefly cover the main factors governing 
 the perception of dialect areas amongst non-linguists (e.g. proximity\, cu
 ltural prominence\, and the impact of borders (Montgomery 2012)).\n\nThe r
 emainder of the paper will examine salience and real-time reactions to spe
 ech amongst non-linguists\, with a focus on samples from the South West of
  England. Using a new tool for capturing\, visualising\, and querying list
 eners’ real-time reactions to voice samples\, we will explore the relati
 onship between actual language production and how language forms are perce
 ived. \n\nI will show that different language features function to mark di
 fferent kinds of social meanings and that some language features carry mor
 e weight when it comes to identifying a locale. In particular\, the paper 
 will demonstrate that the same linguistic features are perceived different
 ly dependent upon the wider ‘guise’ in which they appear. \n\nThis com
 plex way in which topic\, regard\, and feature recognition interact suppor
 ts Clopper and Pisoni’s  (2004:44) assertion that “the process of spee
 ch perception involves not only the segmentation of the speech signal into
  meaningful linguistic units (e.g.\, words\, sentences) and the recovery o
 f the structure of the sound patterns\, but also the processing and encodi
 ng of indexical information about the talker.” These results are\, of co
 urse\, entirely in line with the findings of Campbell-Kibler (2009)\, Phar
 ao et al. (2014)\, and Podesva et al. (2015)\, although note that these st
 udies focus on one linguistic feature\, whereas this study shows how a num
 ber of linguistic features can work synergistically in this perceptual pro
 cess.\n\nReferences\n\nCampbell-Kibler\, Kathryn. 2009. The nature of soci
 olinguistic perception. Language Variation and Change 21(01). 135–156. d
 oi:10.1017/S0954394509000052.\nClopper\, Cynthia G. & David B. Pisoni. 200
 4. Some new experiments on perceptual categorization of dialect variation 
 in American English: Acoustic analysis and linguistic experience. Research
  on Spoken Language Processing 26. 29–46.\nMontgomery\, Chris. 2012. The
  effect of proximity in perceptual dialectology. Journal of Sociolinguisti
 cs 16(5). 638–668. doi:10.1111/josl.12003.\nPharao\, Nicolai\, Marie Mae
 gaard\, Janus Spindler Møller & Tore Kristiansen. 2014. Indexical meaning
 s of [s+] among Copenhagen youth: Social perception of a phonetic variant 
 in different prosodic contexts. Language in Society 43(01). 1–31. doi:10
 .1017/S0047404513000857.\nPodesva\, Robert J\, Jermay Jamsu & Patrick Call
 ier. 2015. Constraints on the social meaning of released /t/: A production
  and perception study of US politicians. Language Variation and Change 27(
 1). 59–87.\nPreston\, Dennis R. 2010. Variation in Language Regard. In P
 eter Gilles\, Evelyn Ziegler & Joachim Scharloth (eds.)\, Variatio delecta
 t:  Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation
  (für Klaus J. Mattheier zum 65. Geburtstag)\, 7–27. Frankfut am Main: 
 Peter Lang.\n\n
LOCATION:GR06/07\, English Faculty Building\, 9 West Road\, Sidgwick Site
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR