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 l
 istener reactions - Dr Chris Montgomery  (University of Sheffield) 
DTSTART:20170309T160000Z
DTEND:20170309T173000Z
UID:TALK70706@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)).\nThe rem
 ainder of the paper will examine salience and real-time reactions to speec
 h amongst non-linguists\, with a focus on samples from the South West of E
 ngland. Using a new tool for capturing\, visualising\, and querying listen
 ers’ real-time reactions to voice samples\, we will explore the relation
 ship between actual language production and how language forms are perceiv
 ed. \nI will show that different language features function to mark differ
 ent kinds of social meanings and that some language features carry more we
 ight when it comes to identifying a locale. In particular\, the paper will
  demonstrate that the same linguistic features are perceived differently d
 ependent upon the wider ‘guise’ in which they appear. \nThis complex w
 ay in which topic\, regard\, and feature recognition interact supports Clo
 pper and Pisoni’s  (2004:44) assertion that “the process of speech per
 ception involves not only the segmentation of the speech signal into meani
 ngful linguistic units (e.g.\, words\, sentences) and the recovery of the 
 structure of the sound patterns\, but also the processing and encoding of 
 indexical information about the talker.” These results are\, of course\,
  entirely in line with the findings of Campbell-Kibler (2009)\, Pharao et 
 al. (2014)\, and Podesva et al. (2015)\, although note that these studies 
 focus on one linguistic feature\, whereas this study shows how a number of
  linguistic features can work synergistically in this perceptual process.\
 nReferences\nCampbell-Kibler\, Kathryn. 2009. The nature of sociolinguisti
 c perception. Language Variation and Change 21(01). 135–156. doi:10.1017
 /S0954394509000052.\nClopper\, Cynthia G. & David B. Pisoni. 2004. Some ne
 w experiments on perceptual categorization of dialect variation in America
 n 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 Sociolinguistics 16(5). 
 638–668. doi:10.1111/josl.12003.\nPharao\, Nicolai\, Marie Maegaard\, Ja
 nus Spindler Møller & Tore Kristiansen. 2014. Indexical meanings of [s+] 
 among Copenhagen youth: Social perception of a phonetic variant in differe
 nt prosodic contexts. Language in Society 43(01). 1–31. doi:10.1017/S004
 7404513000857.\nPodesva\, Robert J\, Jermay Jamsu & Patrick Callier. 2015.
  Constraints on the social meaning of released /t/: A production and perce
 ption study of US politicians. Language Variation and Change 27(1). 59–8
 7.\nPreston\, Dennis R. 2010. Variation in Language Regard. In Peter Gille
 s\, Evelyn Ziegler & Joachim Scharloth (eds.)\, Variatio delectat:  Empiri
 sche Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation (für Kla
 us J. Mattheier zum 65. Geburtstag)\, 7–27. Frankfut am Main: Peter Lang
 .\n
LOCATION:GR05\, English Faculty Building\, 9 West Road\, Sidgwick Site
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR