Speakers build linguistic styles by combining elements of existing styles, a process known as bricolage , which results in stylistic resources appearing across multiple styles. Although speakers’ ability to construct and deploy styles across situations has been documented repeatedly, little perceptual work has been done on how linguistic cues function across styles. This study used a matched guise experiment to examine the impact of the English variable (ING) on social perceptions of speakers presented as professors, political candidates, or experienced professionals. As predicted, profession shifted the impact of (ING) on perceived knowledgeability, such that professors were seen as more knowledgeable when using -ing, whereas experienced professionals were more knowledgeable in their -in guises. Use of -in also made all speakers sound less caring and created a positive relationship between political progressiveness and caring in perceptions of political candidates.
Agha, A. ( 2003). The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication, 23, 231-273.
2.
Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J.M., Jr. (2006). Purple America. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 97-118.
3.
Apple, W., Streeter, L.A., & Krauss, R.M. ( 1979). Effects of pitch and speech rate on personal attributions . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 715-727.
4.
Asch, S.E. ( 1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290.
5.
Baayen, H. ( 2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Bates, D. ( 2007). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using s4 classes (R package version 0.99875-8).
7.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. ( 2008). Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program] . http://www.praat.org/
8.
Brown, B.L., Giles, H., & Thakerar, J.N. (1985). Speaker evaluations as a function of speech rate, accent and context. Language and Communication, 5, 207-220.
9.
Brown, B.L., Strong, W.J., Rencher, A.C., & Smith, B.L. ( 1974). Fifty-four voices from two: The effects of simultaneous manipulations of rate, mean fundamental frequency, and variance of fundamental frequency on ratings of personality from speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 55, 313-318.
10.
Campbell-Kibler, K. ( 2007). Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions . American Speech, 82, 32-64.
11.
Campbell-Kibler, K. ( 2009). The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Language Variation and Change, 21, 135-156.
12.
Cargile, A.C., & Bradac, J.J. ( 2001). Attitudes toward language: A review of speaker-evaluation research and a general process model. Communication Yearbook , 25, 347-382.
13.
Cargile, A.C., Giles, H., Ryan, E.B., & Bradac, J.J. ( 1994). Language attitudes as a social process: A conceptual model and new directions. Language and Communication, 14, 211-236.
14.
Coupland, N. ( 2007). Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Eckert, P. ( 2000). Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. New York: Blackwell.
16.
Eckert, P., & Rickford, J. R. (Eds.). (2001). Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Fischer, J. ( 1958). Social influence of a linguistic variant. Word, 14, 47-56.
18.
Giles, H., Coupland, N., Henwood, K., Harriman, J., & Coupland, J. ( 1990). The social meaning of RP: An intergenerational perspective . In S. Ramgaran (Ed.), Studies in the pronunciation of English: A commemorative volume in honor of A. C. Gimson (pp. 191-211). New York: Routledge .
19.
Hazen, K. ( 2008). (ING): A vernacular baseline for English in Appalachia . American Speech, 83, 116-140.
20.
Hebdige, D. ( 1979). Subculture: The meaning of style. New York: Routledge.
21.
Kelley, H.H. ( 1950). The warm-cold variable in first impressions of people . Journal of Personality, 18, 431-439.
22.
Kiesling, S. ( 1998). Men’s identities and sociolinguistic variation: The case of fraternity men. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2, 69-99.
23.
Labov, W. ( 1966). The social stratification of English in New York City . Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
24.
Labov, W., Ash, S., Baranowski, M., Nagy, N., Ravindranath, M., & Weldon, T. ( 2006). Listeners’ sensitivity to the frequency of sociolinguistic variables. In M. L. Friesner & M. Ravindranath (Eds.), Penn working papers in linguistics: Selected papers from NWAV 34 in New York City (Vol. 12.2, pp. 105-129). Penn Linguistics Club Philadelphia .
25.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. ( 1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior. London: Sage.
26.
R Development Core Team. (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: Author.
27.
Reich, W.A., & Ray, S. ( 2006). Domain specific effects of central traits in impression formation. Psychological Reports, 98, 885-891.
28.
Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K., & Kroskrity, P. V. (Eds.). (1998). Language ideologies, theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
Shuy, R., Wolfram, W., & Riley, W.K. ( 1967). Linguistic correlates of social stratification in Detroit speech (Final Rep. No. 6-1347). Washington, DC: US Office of Education.
30.
Silverstein, M. ( 2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23, 193-229.
31.
Trudgill, P. ( 1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Wald, B., & Shopen, T. ( 1985). A researcher’s guide to the sociolinguistic variable (ING). In V. Clark, P. Escholtz, & A. Rosa (Eds.), Language: Introductory readings (pp. 515-542). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
