Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Phonetic Variation and
Self-Recorded Data
Lauren Hall-Lew & Zac Boyd
@dialect & @zacboyd_
The University of Edinburgh
Self-Recordings & Sociolinguistic Methods
• Self-Recordings
• “Non-Participant Observation”
• When participants record the...
Self-Recordings & Sociophonetic Methods
• Challenges:
• Ethical issues
• participant obtaining consent from other particip...
• Some of these issues are changing….
Self-Recordings & Sociophonetic Methods
• Sociophonetic research typically considers:
• A range of speech styles but no self-recordings
• Pseudo-self-recordings
•...
Sharma (2011)
• Who:
• Residents of Southall, a majority South Asian neighbourhood
of London.
• Variables:
• Four binary p...
Sharma (2011:477, Figure 4, ‘Simran’)
• Interviewer:
• South Asian
• Self-recording
interlocutors:
• White British
• Varia...
Sharma (2011:475, Figure 3, ‘Anwar’)
Research Questions
• Our main question today:
• How does speech obtained from self-recordings
compare to speech from socio...
Research Questions
• P.S. Another question we’re asking in this project:
• How does non-/minimally scripted speech obtaine...
Boyd, Elliott, Fruehwald,
Hall-Lew, & Lawrence (2015)
• ‘Vicky’
• F, Chinese American
• b. 1985, rec. 2013
• San Francisco...
• What about other
linguistic variables?
• What about other
speakers?
• What about types of
self-recordings?
Boyd, Elliott...
Today: Speakers & Social Factors
‘Name’
Year
Born
Year
Recorded
Place
Born
Place
Recorded
Heritage
Ethnicity
Other
L1
Immi...
Today: Speakers & Self-Recordings
‘Name’ Self-Recording 1 Self-Recording 2 Self-Recording 3
Kat
Hanging out / meeting
with...
Which variable? /s/
• Sibilant variation has been studied with respect to to:
• Duration
• Spectral moments
• Our acoustic...
/s/ + recording context
• Tucker et al. (2016)
• /s/ CoG is higher in read
speech (TIMIT corpus) than
conversational speec...
/s/ + gender & sexual identity
• /s/ variation between men and women
• /s/ variation and male speakers
• /s/ variation and...
Podesva & Van Hofwegen (2014)
• Redding, CA
• pop. 90% white
• Sociolx interviews
• Groups of women:
• trans women (2)
• l...
Saigusa (2016)
• Jane Lynch
• lesbian celebrity
• Televised interviews
• Rachel Maddow
(MSNBC)
• lesbian
• Gayle King & Er...
Studies on women & /s/
Study
# of
spkrs
Sexual
Orientation
Social Factor Result
Podesva & Van
Hofwegen (2014)
24 various s...
Methods
• Mixed-effects models:
• One per speaker
• Main effects:
• DURATION
• POSITION in syllable
• PRECEDING phonologic...
Overall Speaker Differences
Without Self-Recording Data
*
*
*
* =	
  sig.	
  at	
  any	
  level
♂
♀, ♀
♀
*
*
♀
♀, ♀, ♀
*
*
♂ ♂, ♂
♀
*
*
*
*
Without Self-Recording Data
With Self-Recording Data
Summary
• The direction of variation obtained from the
self-recordings differs across speakers.
• But in each case, self-r...
• “While laboratory materials are very useful in many
ways, they are problematic in others. They only
scratch the surface ...
Thank you!
• Thanks for your attention!
• Thanks also to:
• Our generous speakers-turned-fieldworkers.
• Our volunteer res...
Selected References
• Boyd, Z., Elliott, Z., Fruehwald, J., Hall-Lew, L., and Lawrence, D. 2015. An Evaluation of Differen...
Laboratory Task References
• Baker, R., Hazan, V. 2011. DiapixUK: A task for the elicitation of spontaneous speech dialogs...
Two interviews in two different years
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Lauren Hall-Lew & Zac Boyd's NWAV45 talk on Phonetic Variation and Self-Recorded Data

502 views

Published on

Hall-Lew, Lauren and Zac Boyd. 2016. "Phonetic Variation and Self-Recorded Data." Paper Presented at the 45th meeting of the New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV), Vancouver, BC, Canada. 5 November.

Published in: Data & Analytics
  • DOWNLOAD FULL BOOKS, INTO AVAILABLE FORMAT ......................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... ,DOWNLOAD FULL. PDF EBOOK here { https://tinyurl.com/yyxo9sk7 } ......................................................................................................................... ,DOWNLOAD FULL. EPUB Ebook here { https://tinyurl.com/yyxo9sk7 } ......................................................................................................................... ,DOWNLOAD FULL. doc Ebook here { https://tinyurl.com/yyxo9sk7 } ......................................................................................................................... ,DOWNLOAD FULL. PDF EBOOK here { https://tinyurl.com/yyxo9sk7 } ......................................................................................................................... ,DOWNLOAD FULL. EPUB Ebook here { https://tinyurl.com/yyxo9sk7 } ......................................................................................................................... ,DOWNLOAD FULL. doc Ebook here { https://tinyurl.com/yyxo9sk7 } ......................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... .............. Browse by Genre Available eBooks ......................................................................................................................... Art, Biography, Business, Chick Lit, Children's, Christian, Classics, Comics, Contemporary, Cookbooks, Crime, Ebooks, Fantasy, Fiction, Graphic Novels, Historical Fiction, History, Horror, Humor And Comedy, Manga, Memoir, Music, Mystery, Non Fiction, Paranormal, Philosophy, Poetry, Psychology, Religion, Romance, Science, Science Fiction, Self Help, Suspense, Spirituality, Sports, Thriller, Travel, Young Adult,
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Lauren Hall-Lew & Zac Boyd's NWAV45 talk on Phonetic Variation and Self-Recorded Data

  1. 1. Phonetic Variation and Self-Recorded Data Lauren Hall-Lew & Zac Boyd @dialect & @zacboyd_ The University of Edinburgh
  2. 2. Self-Recordings & Sociolinguistic Methods • Self-Recordings • “Non-Participant Observation” • When participants record their speech without a researcher present • Why they’re appealing: • Potentially improving the ecological validity • Potentially reducing the Observer’s Paradox • Or, at least, changing it (cf., Wilson 1987, Schøning & Møller 2009)
  3. 3. Self-Recordings & Sociophonetic Methods • Challenges: • Ethical issues • participant obtaining consent from other participants • self-recordings made in public places • Logistical issues • equipment; paperwork; scheduling… • inability to control the ambient noise of the recording • inability to control the amount of speech per recording • Analytical issues • lack of researcher knowledge about the social context • different self-recordings may be very stylistically different • (Meyerhoff, Schleef, & MacKenzie 2015:56)
  4. 4. • Some of these issues are changing…. Self-Recordings & Sociophonetic Methods
  5. 5. • Sociophonetic research typically considers: • A range of speech styles but no self-recordings • Pseudo-self-recordings • (with a researcher present but participating) • e.g., Hindle (1979) • Only self-recordings, with no comparison styles • e.g, Podesva (2006, et seq.) • e.g., analyses of YouTubers (e.g., Schneider 2016) • Some exceptions: • Sharma (2011); Boyd et al. (2015) Self-Recordings & Sociophonetic Methods
  6. 6. Sharma (2011) • Who: • Residents of Southall, a majority South Asian neighbourhood of London. • Variables: • Four binary phonetic variables indexing South Asian identity • Styles: • Sociolinguistic interview • Self-recordings with an ethnically diverse range of interlocutors • Results • Effects of interview vs. self-recording are clearly linked to ethnic indexicality and speaker ethnicity, not the stylistic context per se.
  7. 7. Sharma (2011:477, Figure 4, ‘Simran’) • Interviewer: • South Asian • Self-recording interlocutors: • White British • Variation: • Monophthongal /e/ variants are absent in the self-recording. • No difference for the other three variables.
  8. 8. Sharma (2011:475, Figure 3, ‘Anwar’)
  9. 9. Research Questions • Our main question today: • How does speech obtained from self-recordings compare to speech from sociolinguistic interviews, more generally? • Levon (2013:211) • “Fortunately, the use of self-recording with semi- informed collaborators does not necessarily lead to significant performative shifts, possibly because the exigencies of the actual interaction tend to dominate.” • To what extent does that hold across different types of self- recordings?
  10. 10. Research Questions • P.S. Another question we’re asking in this project: • How does non-/minimally scripted speech obtained from ‘laboratory’ elicitation tasks compare to speech from sociolinguistic interview tasks? • The Map Task (Brown et al. 1984) • both in dialogue & monologue (Scarborough et al. 2007) • The Diapix Task (Baker & Hazan 2011) • both in dialogue & monologue • Narrating a picture book (e.g., Troiani et al. 2008) • Narrating a silent film (e.g., Chafe 1980) • And how do those styles compare to self-recorded speech?
  11. 11. Boyd, Elliott, Fruehwald, Hall-Lew, & Lawrence (2015) • ‘Vicky’ • F, Chinese American • b. 1985, rec. 2013 • San Francisco, CA • Lauren as fieldworker • Styles • Interview (baseline) • ‘Laboratory’ tasks • ‘Selfrecord’ (x3)
  12. 12. • What about other linguistic variables? • What about other speakers? • What about types of self-recordings? Boyd, Elliott, Fruehwald, Hall-Lew, & Lawrence (2015)
  13. 13. Today: Speakers & Social Factors ‘Name’ Year Born Year Recorded Place Born Place Recorded Heritage Ethnicity Other L1 Immigrant Generation Kat 1986 2016 SF Easy Bay Edinburgh Chinese Taiwanese Mandarin 2 Piper 1988 2016 Louisville, KY Edinburgh Greek N/A 3 Vicky 1985 2013 San Francisco San Francisco Chinese Shanghainese 2
  14. 14. Today: Speakers & Self-Recordings ‘Name’ Self-Recording 1 Self-Recording 2 Self-Recording 3 Kat Hanging out / meeting with a friend (♂) Lunch with friends* (♀, ♀) Skype call with a friend (♀) Piper Celebration party with friends (♀, ♀, ♀) [technical error] At home with her visiting mother (♀) Vicky Hanging out with friends (♂, ♂) Lunch with a friend (♂) Cooking at home with sister (♀)
  15. 15. Which variable? /s/ • Sibilant variation has been studied with respect to to: • Duration • Spectral moments • Our acoustic measures: 1st 4 spectral moments: • Center of Gravity (CoG), Standard Deviation, Skewness, Kurtosis • Previous work on /s/ has found correlations with: • Speech style • ‘conversational’ vs. ‘clear’/‘read’ • Gender & sexual identity • of the speaker • of the interlocutor
  16. 16. /s/ + recording context • Tucker et al. (2016) • /s/ CoG is higher in read speech (TIMIT corpus) than conversational speech (Buckeye corpus) • Pattern holds for all fricatives. • Maniwa et al. (2009) • /s/ CoG is higher in clear speech than conversational speech (lab) • Pattern holds for /f, v, θ, z/
  17. 17. /s/ + gender & sexual identity • /s/ variation between men and women • /s/ variation and male speakers • /s/ variation and female speakers • Gender & sexual identity of the speaker: • Podesva & Van Hofwegen (2014) • Gender & sexual identity of the interlocutor: • Saigusa (2016)
  18. 18. Podesva & Van Hofwegen (2014) • Redding, CA • pop. 90% white • Sociolx interviews • Groups of women: • trans women (2) • lesbians (4) • straight women • country (7) • town (11) Thanks to Rob Podesva for the original image
  19. 19. Saigusa (2016) • Jane Lynch • lesbian celebrity • Televised interviews • Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) • lesbian • Gayle King & Erica Hill (CBS) • neither lesbian (presumed straight) Thanks to Julie Saigusa for the data to generate the image
  20. 20. Studies on women & /s/ Study # of spkrs Sexual Orientation Social Factor Result Podesva & Van Hofwegen (2014) 24 various speaker identity sig. lower CoG among lesbians Saigusa (2016) 1 lesbian interlocutor identity sig. lower CoG when talking to another lesbian Today’s Talk 3 straight interlocutor; recording context ?
  21. 21. Methods • Mixed-effects models: • One per speaker • Main effects: • DURATION • POSITION in syllable • PRECEDING phonological environment • FOLLOWING phonological environment • INTERLOCUTOR • Random intercept: • WORD • Dependent Variable: • Center of Gravity of /s/ • 5,711 /s/ tokens total • (3 speakers) • Extracted from FAVE alignments (Rosenfelder et al. 2014) • Omitted tokens: • all str- clusters • outliers (±2 StDev) • tokens < 30ms
  22. 22. Overall Speaker Differences
  23. 23. Without Self-Recording Data * * * * =  sig.  at  any  level
  24. 24. ♂ ♀, ♀ ♀ * *
  25. 25. ♀ ♀, ♀, ♀ * *
  26. 26. ♂ ♂, ♂ ♀ * * * *
  27. 27. Without Self-Recording Data
  28. 28. With Self-Recording Data
  29. 29. Summary • The direction of variation obtained from the self-recordings differs across speakers. • But in each case, self-recordings result in production patterns beyond the range of those obtained from the tasks in a traditional sociolinguistic interview.
  30. 30. • “While laboratory materials are very useful in many ways, they are problematic in others. They only scratch the surface of the informants’ phonetic repertoire and thus limit the theoretical inferences that can be drawn with respect to speech planning or phonological knowledge.” - Foulkes, Scobbie & Watt (2010: 728) • While interviews do more than ‘scratch the surface’, data from self-recordings suggests that we can dig deeper, still. Self-recordings & Linguistic Knowledge
  31. 31. Thank you! • Thanks for your attention! • Thanks also to: • Our generous speakers-turned-fieldworkers. • Our volunteer research assistant, Gussie White. • Collaborators on Boyd et al. (2015), • Zuzana Elliott • Joe Fruehwald • Daniel Lawrence • Members of the Language Variation and Change Research Group at the University of Edinburgh.
  32. 32. Selected References • Boyd, Z., Elliott, Z., Fruehwald, J., Hall-Lew, L., and Lawrence, D. 2015. An Evaluation of Different Sociolinguistic Elicitation Methods. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow, UK: The University of Glasgow. • Hindle, D. M. 1979. The social and situational conditioning of phonetic variation. PhD Thesis, Univ. of Pennsylvania. • Levon, Erez. 2013. Ethnography and recording interaction. In Robert J. Podesva and Devyani Sharma (Eds.), Research Methods in Linguistics, pp195-215. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Maniwa, K., Jongman, A., & Wade, T. 2009. Acoustic characteristics of clearly spoken English fricatives. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125(6), 3962-3973. • Podesva, R. J. 2007. Phonation Type as a Stylistic Variable: The Use of Falsetto in Constructing a Persona. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11, 478-504. • Podesva, R. J., & Van Hofwegen, J. (2014). How Conservatism and Normative Gender Constrain Variation in Inland California: The Case of /s/. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 20(2), 15. • Rosenfelder, I., Fruehwald, J., Evanini, K., Seyfarth, S., Gorman, K., Prichard, H. and Yuan, J. 2014. FAVE 1.1.3. ZENODO. doi:10.5281/zenodo.9846. • Saigusa, J. 2016. Jane Lynch and /s/: The Effect of Addressee Sexuality on Fricative Realization. Lifespans & Styles: Undergraduate Working Papers on Intraspeaker Variation 2(1):10-16. • Schneider, E. W. 2016. World Englishes on YouTube. In World Englishes: New theoretical and methodological considerations, pp253-282. • Schøning, S. & J. S. Møller. 2009. Self-recordings as a social activity. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 32(2), 245-269. • Sharma, D. 2011. Style repertoire and social change in British Asian English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(4):464–492. • Tucker, Benjamin V., Viktor Kharlamov, and Daniel Brenner. 2016. “What the Zed? The Acoustics of Conversational Fricatives in Mid-Western American English.” Presented at NoWPhon 2016. • Wagner, Petra, Jürgen Trouvain, and Frank Zimmerer. 2015. In defense of stylistic diversity in speech research. Journal of Phonetics 48:1-12. • Wilson, John. 1987. The Sociolinguistic Paradox: Data as a Methodological Product. Language & Communication 7(2):161-177
  33. 33. Laboratory Task References • Baker, R., Hazan, V. 2011. DiapixUK: A task for the elicitation of spontaneous speech dialogs. Behavior Research Methods, 43(4), 761-770. • Brown, G., Anderson, A. H., Shillcock, R. and Yule, G. 1984. Teaching Talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Chafe, W. 1980. The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. • Labov, W. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. • Troiani, V., Fernández-Seara, M. A., Wang, Z., Detre, J. A., Ash, S. and Grossman, M. 2008. Narrative speech production: an fMRI study using continuous arterial spin labeling. Neuroimage, 40(2): 932– 939. • Scarborough, R., Brenier, J., Zhao, J., Hall-Lew, L., and Dmitrieva, O. 2007. An Acoustic Study of Real and Imagined Foreigner-Directed Speech. Publication of the 16th International Conference of the Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVI). Saarbrücken, Germany. • Varon, S. 2007. Robot Dreams. New York: First Second.
  34. 34. Two interviews in two different years

×