Accent perception

Accents are the distinctive variations in the pronunciation of a language. They can be native or foreign, local or national and can provide information about a person’s geographical locality, socio-economic status and ethnicity.[1] The perception of accents is normal within any given group of language users and involves the categorisation of speakers into social groups and entails judgments about the accented speaker, including their status[2] and personality.[3] Accents can significantly alter the perception of an individual or an entire group, which is an important fact considering that the frequency that people with different accents are encountering one another is increasing, partially due to inexpensive international travel and social media. As well as affecting judgments, accents also affect key cognitive processes (e.g., memory) that are involved in a myriad of daily activities. The development of accent perception occurs in early childhood. Consequently, from a young age accents influence our perception of other people, decisions we make about when and how to interact with others, and, in reciprocal fashion, how other people perceive us. A better understanding of the role accents play in our (often inaccurate) appraisal of individuals and groups, may facilitate greater acceptance of people different from ourselves and lessen discriminatory attitudes and behavior.[subjective / citations?[

Social identity theory of accents

Social identity theory is a theory that describes intergroup behaviour based on group membership. Markers of group membership can be arbitrary, e.g., coloured vests, a flip of a coin, etc., or non-arbitrary, e.g., gender, language, race, etc.[4] Accent is a non-arbitrary marker for group membership that is potentially more salient than most other non-arbitrary markers such as race[5] and visual cues in general.[6] One component of social identity theory states that members of the same group will treat and judge other members of their group (in-group members) preferentially compared to those who are not in their group (out-group members).[7][8] This phenomenon is called in-group bias and when applied to accents is called the own-accent bias. There are many examples of the discrimination of out-groups based on language, e.g., the banning of the public speaking of German in the United States during World War I and the Al-Anfal Campaign, however, there are also examples of discrimination based on accent. Some of these instances date back many several millennia, for example, in the Bible in Judges 12:5-6 the following quote depicting the mass-killing of a people based on their accent appears:

“The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan leading to Ephraim, and whenever a survivor of Ephraim said, “Let me cross over,” the men of Gilead asked him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” If he replied, “No,” they said, “All right, say ‘Shibboleth.’” If he said, “Sibboleth,” because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time.”

Whereas some are more recent, for example, in his play Pygmalion George Bernard Shaw famously recognised the disparities of accent (even in a native context) when he wrote:

“It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him”.[9]

Evolutionary underpinnings of the own-accent bias

Accents function as markers of social group membership broadcasting information about individuals' in-group/out-group status. However, unlike other seemingly more conspicuous non-arbitrary markers (e.g., race), the accent an individual has is not outwardly obvious to a casual observer unless the individual speaks and is within hearing range of the observer. This begs the question of how such an easily hidden characteristic became a marker of group membership in the first place. One predominant account suggests an answer to this conundrum lies in evolutionary history.[10][11] In modern societies people of many different racial backgrounds live together, which provides modern humans with the chance to experience a wide range of races and racial characteristics (e.g., different coloured skin).[12][13] However, in early societies neighbouring communities could not travel far except by walking, thus they were likely to look similar.[14] As such, a natural selection pressure may have existed that favoured social attention to accents, which functioned as an honesty signal (i.e., an honest signal of an individual's group membership), so individuals could easily identify in-group members from the potential threat of out-group members.[15] In comparison, the selection pressure to socially attend to race was less relevant.[16]

Theories of own-accent bias

The own-accent bias is the inclination toward, and more positive judgement of, individuals with the same accent as yourself compared to those with a different accent. There are two main theories that attempt to explain this bias: affective processing and prototype representation.

Affective processing

The affective processing approach proposes that the positive-bias exhibited for others who speak with an own-accent is produced by a (potentially unconscious) emotional reaction. Put simply, people like others who have the same accent as themselves for that precise reason; they like it. This theory has developed, and draws support, from neuroscientific research investigating affective prosody (a key component underlying accent) and vocal emotion, which has found activation (predominantly in the right hemisphere) in important brain regions associated with the processing of emotion. These regions include:

Additional to the processing of memory and emotion, the amygdalae have important roles as “relevance detectors" for the discernment of relevant social information.[25][26] Therefore, these brain regions that deal with social relevance and vocal emotion are probable candidates for a neural network concerning accent-based group membership that would drive the affective processing of accents.

Prototype representation

The prototype representation approach stems from theories developed in the linguistics and cognitive psychology domains. It proposes that there are “prototypes” (i.e., internal representations) stored in the brain, which incoming information from the senses is compared against to facilitate categorisation.[27][28] Therefore, the own-accent bias is due to the fact that own-accents are similar to the prototype of "accent" hence are processed and categorised more easily than those other-accents that are dissimilar. This idea is supported by research showing that the further away a voice is from the average, (which is assumed to be a good representation of the internal prototype of accent) the more distinctive and less attractive it is rated, and the more activity is produced in the temporal voice areas (areas of the brain that deal with voice perception and accents).[29][30][31][32]

Research into accent perception

Recent research has investigated the effects of accent on earwitness memory (similar to eyewitness memory but based on what a person heard rather than saw). The study showed that ear-witnesses were more likely to mistake offenders with a different accent than an own-accent, and that their judgements were less confident in reporting other-accent offenders compared to those with their own-accent.[33] The authors of the study present similarities between the own-accent bias and the own-race bias, which states that faces are more easily recognised by people of the same race (own-race) because those people have more experience (higher expertise) with them compared to faces of different races (other-race).[34][35][36] This is similar to the prototype representation theory of the own-accent bias (see above). Another study investigated the effects of teacher-accent on student learning. This research found that students recalled more information from lectures with teachers who had their own-accent and rated the own-accent teachers more favourably compared to those with an other-accent.[37] Additionally, research focussing on the development of the own-accent bias in infants and children has shown that children are not only consistently able to differentiate between foreign- and native-accents[38][39] but that infants and children prefer individuals who have a native accent compared to a foreign one, leading them to change their behaviour based on a speakers accent (e.g., accepting a toy off a native-accented speaker rather than a foreign-accented speaker).[16][40]

gollark: Saturation is the saturation of the initial pixel, variance is how much it adjusts the color by each step.
gollark: And it is probably creating a bunch of temporary buffers to shunt it to/from the webworker and such.
gollark: 1.7GB, if you like.
gollark: Well, that would be 442008576 pixels, so yes.
gollark: Ah, I guess 21024² is big enough that it might have issues just transferring it to and from the webworker.

See also

References
  1. Labov, W. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York City (2nd ed.). Cambridge [UK]: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-82122-3.
  2. Ross, A. (1954). "Linguistic class-indicators in present-day English". Neuphilologische Mitteilungen. 16: 171–185.
  3. Dailey, R. M.; Giles, Howard; Jansma, Laura L. (2005). "Language attitudes in an Anglo-Hispanic context: the role of the linguistic landscape". Language & Communication. 25 (1): 27–38. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2004.04.004.
  4. Lindzey, D. T.; Gilbert, S. T.; Fiske, G. (1998). The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill. pp. 357–411. ISBN 978-0-19-521376-8.
  5. Kurzban, R.; Tooby, J.; Cosmides, L. (2001). "Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 98 (26): 15387–15392. Bibcode:2001PNAS...9815387K. doi:10.1073/pnas.251541498. PMC 65039. PMID 11742078.
  6. Rakić, T.; Steffens, M. C.; Mummendey, A. (2011). "Blinded by the accent! The minor role of looks in ethnic categorization". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 100 (1): 16–29. doi:10.1037/a0021522. PMID 21038973.
  7. Tajfel, H.; Billig, M. G.; Bundy, R. P.; Flament, C. (1971). "Social categorization and intergroup behaviour". European Journal of Social Psychology. 1 (2): 149–178. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202.
  8. Billig, M.; Tajfel, H. (1973). "Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour". European Journal of Social Psychology. 3 (1): 27–52. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420030103.
  9. Shaw, B. (2008). Pygmalion : a romance in five acts : definitive text. London: Methuen Drama. ISBN 9780713679977.
  10. Baker, M. C. (2001). The atoms of language. New York, USA: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0465005222.
  11. Henrich, N.; Henrich, J. (2007). Why humans cooperate a cultural and evolutionary explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195314236.
  12. Messick, D. M.; Mackie, D. M. (1989). "Intergroup relations". Annual Review of Psychology. 40 (1): 45–81. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.000401. PMID 2648982.
  13. Stangor, C.; Lynch, L.; Duan, C.; Glas, B. (1992). "Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 62 (2): 207–218. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.207.
  14. Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J.; Kurzban, R. (2003). "Perceptions of race". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 7 (4): 173–179. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00057-3. PMID 12691766.
  15. Cohen, E. (2012). "The evolution of tag-based cooperation in humans". Current Anthropology. 53 (5): 588–616. doi:10.1086/667654.
  16. Kinzler, K. D.; Shutts, K.; DeJesus, J.; Spelke, E. S. (2009). "Accent trumps race in guiding children's social preferences". Social Cognition. 27 (4): 623–634. doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.4.623. PMC 3096936. PMID 21603154.
  17. Mitchell, R. L. C.; Elliott, R.; Barry, M.; Cruttenden, A.; Woodruff, P. W. R. (2003). "The neural response to emotional prosody, as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging". Neuropsychologia. 41 (10): 1410–1421. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(03)00017-4. PMID 12757912.
  18. Leitman, D. I.; Wolf, D. H.; Ragland, J. D.; Laukka, P.; Loughead, J.; Valdez, J. N.; Gur, G. C. (2010). ""It's not what you say, but how you say it": A reciprocal temporo-frontal network for affective prosody". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 4: 4–19. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00019. PMC 2831710. PMID 20204074.
  19. Klasen, M.; Kenworthy, C. A.; Mathiak, K. A.; Kircher, T. T. J.; Mathiak, K. (2011). "Supramodal Representation of Emotions". Journal of Neuroscience. 31 (38): 13635–13643. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2833-11.2011. PMC 6623280. PMID 21940454.
  20. Frühholz, S.; Grandjean, D. (2012). "Towards a fronto-temporal neural network for the decoding of angry vocal expressions". NeuroImage. 62 (3): 1658–1666. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.015. PMID 22721630.
  21. Ethofer, T.; Bretscher, J.; Gschwind, M.; Kreifelts, B.; Wildgruber, D.; Vuilleumier, P. (2011). "Emotional voice areas: Anatomic location, functional properties, and structural connections revealed by combined fMRI/DTI". Cerebral Cortex. 22 (1): 191–200. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr113. PMID 21625012.
  22. Pell, M. D.; Leonard, C. L. (2003). "Processing emotional tone from speech in Parkinson's disease: A role for the basal ganglia". Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. 3 (4): 275–288. doi:10.3758/cabn.3.4.275. PMID 15040548.
  23. Klasen, M.; Kenworthy, C. A.; Mathiak, K. A.; Kircher, T. T. J.; Mathiak, K. (2011). "Supramodal representation of emotions". Journal of Neuroscience. 31 (38): 13635–13643. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2833-11.2011. PMID 21940454.
  24. Frühholz, S.; Grandjean, D. (2013). "Amygdala subregions differentially respond and rapidly adapt to threatening voices". Cortex. 49 (5): 1394–1403. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.08.003. PMID 22938844.
  25. Sander, D.; Grafman, J.; Zalla, T. (2003). "The Human Amygdala: An Evolved System for Relevance Detection". Reviews in the Neurosciences. 14 (4): 303–316. doi:10.1515/revneuro.2003.14.4.303. PMID 14640318.
  26. Schirmer, A.; Escoffier, N.; Zysset, S.; Koester, D.; Striano, T.; Friederici, A. D. (2008). "When vocal processing gets emotional: On the role of social orientation in relevance detection by the human amygdala". NeuroImage. 40 (3): 1402–1410. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.018. PMID 18299209.
  27. Rosch, E. (1973). "Natural categories". Cognitive Psychology. 4 (3): 328–350. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0.
  28. Valentine, T. (1991). "A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion, and race in face recognition". The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A. 43 (2): 161–204. doi:10.1080/14640749108400966. PMID 1866456.
  29. Belin, P.; Zatorre, R. J. (2000). "'What', 'where' and 'how' in auditory cortex [letter to the editor]". Nature Neuroscience. 3 (10): 965–966. doi:10.1038/79890. PMID 11017161.
  30. Bestelmeyer, P. E. G.; Belin, P.; Grosbras, M-H. (2011). "Right temporal TMS impairs voice detection". Current Biology. 21 (20): R838–R839. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.046. PMID 22032183.
  31. Bestelmeyer, P. E. G.; Latinus, M.; Bruckert, L.; Rouger, J.; Crabbe, F.; Belin, P. (2011). "Implicitly perceived vocal attractiveness modulates prefrontal cortex activity". Cerebral Cortex. 22 (6): 1263–1270. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr204. PMID 21828348.
  32. Bruckert, L.; Bestelmeyer, P. E. G.; Latinus, M.; Rouger, J.; Charest, I.; Rousselet, G. A.; Belin, P. (2010). "Vocal attractiveness increases by averaging". Current Biology. 20 (2): 116–120. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.034. PMID 20129047.
  33. Stevenage, S. V.; Clarke, G.; McNeill, A. (2012). "The "other-accent" effect in voice recognition". Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 24 (6): 647–653. doi:10.1080/20445911.2012.675321.
  34. Chiroro, P.; Valentine, T. (1995). "An investigation of the contact hypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognition". The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A. 48 (4): 879–894. doi:10.1080/14640749508401421.
  35. Michel, C.; Caldara, R.; Rossion, B. (2006). "Same-race faces are perceived more holistically than other-race faces". Visual Cognition. 14 (1): 55–73. doi:10.1080/13506280500158761.
  36. Tanaka, J. W.; Kiefer, M.; Bukach, C. M. (2004). "A holistic account of the own-race effect in face recognition: evidence from a cross-cultural study". Cognition. 93 (1): B1–B9. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.011. PMID 15110726.
  37. Gill, M. M. (1994). "Accent and stereotypes: Their effect on perceptions of teachers and lecture comprehension". Journal of Applied Communication Research. 22 (4): 348–361. doi:10.1080/00909889409365409.
  38. Floccia, C.; Butler, J.; Girard, F.; Goslin, J. (2009). "Categorization of regional and foreign accent in 5- to 7-year-old British children". International Journal of Behavioral Development. 33 (4): 366–375. doi:10.1177/0165025409103871. hdl:10026.1/9958.
  39. Girard, F.; Floccia, C.; Goslin, J. (2008). "Perception and awareness of accents in young children". British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 26 (3): 409–433. doi:10.1348/026151007X251712. hdl:10026.1/9961.
  40. Kinzler, K. D.; Dupoux, E.; Spelke, E. S. (2007). "The native language of social cognition". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (30): 12577–12580. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10412577K. doi:10.1073/pnas.0705345104. PMC 1941511. PMID 17640881.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.