Attitudes of native and nonnative speakers of English toward various regional and social US

89 Pages·2017·2.51 MB·English

by  Stacey R. Dent

Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and
Retrospective Theses and Dissertations
Dissertations
2004
Attitudes of native and nonnative speakers of
English toward various regional and social U.S.
English accents
Stacey R. Dent
Iowa State University
Follow this and additional works at:https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd
Part of theBilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education Commons,English Language
and Literature Commons, and theFirst and Second Language Acquisition Commons
Recommended Citation
Dent, Stacey R., "Attitudes of native and nonnative speakers of English toward various regional and social U.S. English accents" (2004).
Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 14451.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/14451
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital
Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital
Repository. For more information, please [email protected].
Attitudes ofnative and nonnative speakersof English toward various regional and
social U.S. English accents
by
StaceyR. Dent
A thesis submitted to the graduatefacuhy
in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree of
MASTER OFARTS
Major: Teaching English as aSecondLanguage/AppliedLinguistics
ProgramofStudyCommittee:
John Levis, MajorProfessor
Roberta Vann
StephanieMadon
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
2004
Copyright© StaceyDent, 2004. All rights reserved.
Graduate College
Iowa State University
This is to certifythat the master's thesis of
StaceyR. Dent
has met the thesis requirements ofIowa State University
Signatureshavebeenredacted for privacy
Ill
TABLEOF CONTENTS
LIST OFTABLES iv
ABSTRACT v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Standard Language Ideology 2
Purpose 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATUREREVIEW 9
Standard American English 9
StandardLanguage Ideology 13
Attitudes ofNativeSpeakers Toward Nonstandard U.S. English Accents 18
Nonnative Speakers' JudgmentsofU.S.EnglishAccents 24
Attitude Formation byNonnativeSpeakers 26
CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND MATERIALS 31
Recording ofthe Stimuli 31
Developmentofthe Tape for Accent Study 34
Raters 35
Procedure 38
Data Analysis 40
CHAPTER4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 42
Rating ofSpeech Samples 42
Discussion 57
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS 66
Applications 66
Recommendations 69
APPENDIX A: READING PASSAGES FORSPEAKERS 71
APPENDIX B; BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE FOR 73
RATERS
APPENDIX C: RATING INSTRUMENT 75
APPENDIX D: SAMPLINGFREQUENCYDISTRUBITIONS OFTHEDATA 77
REFERENCES 80
IV
LIST OFTABLES
TABLE 3.1.Biographical InformationforNSRaters (N=20) 36
TABLE3.2.BiographicalInformationforNNS6mos Raters(N=34) 37
TABLE3.3.Biographical InformationforNNS2yrRaters (N=26) 38
TABLE4.1.Subjects' MeanRatings(from1(low) to7 (high)) 43
TABLE4.2. Midwestern vs. Southern and Midwestern vs. AAVE for the Rater Groups 45
TABLE 4.3. Differences between NS and NNS6mos 47
TABLE4.4. Differences between NS and NNS2yr 48
TABLE 4.5. Differences between NNS6mos and NNS2yr 50
TABEL4.6. NumberofTraits with Significant Differences between Groups ofRaters 51
TABLE 4.7. Accent Identification by NS (in percent terms) 52
TABLE4.8. Accent Identification by NNS6mos (in percent terms) 53
TABLE4.9. Accent Identification by NNS2yr (in percent terms) 53
TABLE4.10. Means andDifferences for how NNS6mos Rated AAVE and Southern 56
when Identified Correctly and Incorrectly
ABSTRACT
There is a consistent stigmaassociated with nonstandardU.S. English accents, and
language attitude studies have documented that both standard and nonstandard dialect
speakers rate speakers ofnonstandard accents lower than standard-accented speakers on a
variety ofpersonality characteristics. Whether nonnative speakers ofEnglish share these
negative assessments ofnonstandard accents is not clear. The present study investigates the
attitudes ofnative as well as nonnative speakers ofEnglish toward various regional and
social U.S. English accents and iflength ofstay in the U.S. has an effect on nonnative
speakers' adopting language stereotypes similar tonative speakers. Finally, the study seeks
to determine.ifthe subjects can correctly identify the accents and ifidentification has an
effecton ratings for nonnative speakers.
Three U.S. English accents, Midwestern, Southern, and African American Vernacular
English (AAVE)wereevaluated usinga7-pointLikertscaleby threegroups ofraters. The
groups were native speakers ofEnglish, nonnativespeakers of English presentin the U.S.for
six months or less, andnonnativespeakersofEnglishpresentin the U.S.between twoand
six years. After rating the speakers, theraters attempted toidentify the accents ofthe
speakers.
The results showed that all three groups ofraters evaluated the Midwestern-accented
speech highest on allpairs ofcharacteristics. Both groups of nonnative speakers had similar
ratingsto native speakersfor Midwesternspeech,onlynonnativespeakersin theU.S.fortwo
ormoreyearshad similarratings to nativespeakersfortheSouthernspeech. Bothgroupsof
nonnativespeakers rated AAVE-accentedspeechlower than native speakers. Nonnative
VI
speakers were less successful in identifying Midwestern and Southern-accentedEnglish, but
were more successful in identifying AAVE-accented English. Skill at identification had little
correlation to attitudes expressed by nonnative speakers. The results indicate that time spent
in the U.S. is not afactor in adopting the notionof aprestige variety for nonnative speakers.
Theresults also indicate that nonnative speakers become more sensitive to regional accents
with extended time in the U.S., but that timeis not afactor in nonnative speakers' developing
bias toward social accents.
CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION
Inthe United States, evidence has shown that dialects which are considered to be
nonstandard are stigmatized, and their speakers are associated withnegative stereotypes. We
allknow the cliches well. Many people tendto think ofthose who speak with aSouthern
accent as slow and unintelligent (Preston, 1996a). They may also characterizeblack speech
as ghetto, slang, and low-class. ANew York accent might be associated with arude or
working classperson (Niedzielski&Preston2000). Whilethese aresome ofthenegative
stereotypes associated with speakers ofnonstandard accents, there are some positive ones as
well. Speakerswith nonstandard accentshavealso,forexample,been labeled asbeing
friendlier, andmoretrustworthyandhonest, aswellastopossessmorepersonalitythan
standardspeakers (Hewett, 1971;Tucker&Lambert,1969). Since languageis soclosely
tiedtoidentity, howonespeaks isoftentheyardstickbywhichheisjudged. People tend to
usedialectsand accents as awaytosizeoneanotherup (Alvarez&Kolker, 1987). The
instant someoneuttersaword, ahostofstereotyped reactions maytakeplace. Ifthespeaker
happens tospeakwithastigmatizedaccent, thereactionwilllikelybenegative. Ofcourse,
whetherornotthesejudgmentsaretruedoesnotmatter. Thespeechsimplyactsasacueto
groupmembership, andthe stereotypedreactionis formedbased onthebeliefswhichonehas
aboutparticulargroups ofpeople(Tajfel &Turner, 1979). Thus, speechisaverypowerful
tool bywhichwe arejudged.
Interestingly, itis not uncommonevenforspeakerswith astigmatizedaccentor
dialecttoregardtheirownspeechas"bad"or"improper"(Alvarez&Kolker,1987;
Niedzielski &Preston, 2000). Theyoften recognize that iftheywish toleave theregion orto
"climbtheladderofsuccess,"theywillhavetolearntospeak"properly** sothattheywillnot
bejudgednegativelyorsothattheirprofessional andintellectual abilitieswillnotbe
questioned. Thereisoftenthisdistinctionbetweenahome dialect andaprofessionaldialect
amongnonstandardspeakers(Alvarez &Kolker, 1987). Conversely, however, other
speakerswithnonstandardaccentsrefusetoadoptwhatisconsidered astandardaccent
(Wardhaugh, 2002). Tomany,maintainingtheirhomeaccentandvarietyin spiteofthe
disadvantagesitmay bring tothem isawayforspeakersofnonstandard dialectstoshow
solidaritywith other membersintheirspeechcommunity,topreserve their identitiesandto
resist the standardizationoftheir language perhaps due to disappointment in the standard-
speakingsociety. Thus,keeping theirhomevarietyhascertain advantageswithin their
commimitiesandtheir languagehaswhat iscalledcovertprestige. Thismeansthat although
itsprestige is negative, itis "notwithoutitscomforts"(Wardhaugh,2002,p. 349).
Standard Language Ideology
Such attitudes byboth speakers ofstigmatizeddialects as well as those outside the
particularspeech communitycan onlybe understood because their existenceisbased on a
comparison to anon-stigmatized variety. Clearly, ifcertaindialects or accents are seen as
particularlystigmatized, it must be because thesethey arebeing measured against adialect or
accent that is assumed to be superior. Stigmatized dialects and accents are often faulted
because they donot sound like what people claim is standard English. While those who
make such claims can not explain why, they oftenstate that these varieties are accented and
that those who don't speakthe standard arejustnot as intelligentas those who do (Lippi-
Green, 1994;Niedzielski & Preston, 2000; Preston 1996a). There is often a senseof*Vhy
can't theyjust speakright?* AlthoughtheconceptofstandardEnglishiselusive,thefactthat
it isoftenused asamirrorbywhich"bad" Englishcanbemeasured representsthe
psychological awarenessthatpeoplehaveoftheexistenceofStandardAmericanEnglish
(SAE).
Onemight expectsuchpervasivebeliefsaboutwhat is"good" and"bad" Englishto
be the resultofsome government agencyregulating standards ofEnglishin the U.S.
Howeversuch an agencydoes not exist in this country, as it does in France where the
Academie Fran9aiseoversees allregulation ofthe standards ofthe Frenchlanguage. In fact,
linguists have had much difficulty defining what standard English is in the United States. It
is considereda written as opposed to oralvariety (Wiley and Lukes, 2000). Others claim that
it is possible to speak"correct"Englishwith avariety ofaccents, that each region supports
its own standard (Falk, 1978). However one attempts to define it, awareness ofastandard
indicates thepsychological realityofSAEand can be explainedin terms ofstandard
language ideology. Standard language ideologyis defined as, "abias toward an abstracted,
idealized, homogenous spoken language which is imposed from above...whichtakes as its
model the written language"and which has as its goalthe "suppressionofvariation,"(Lippi-
Green, 1994, p. 166). Under such ideology, one variety attains its status as the prestige
variety becauseit is the varietyofadominant groupwho is able to impose its variety as
superioroverothers (Wiley& Lukes, 2000). The dominance is imposed through a varietyof
national institutions, including the educational system, the media, the corporate sector, and
the courts (Lippi-Green, 1994). Sincethe dominantvarietyis imposed through these
institutions, speakers ofnonstandard regional or social dialects and accents are at a
considerablesocial and educational disadvantage. Thus, commandofthe standard varietyis