Implicit and explicit gender priming in English lingual sibilant fricative perception
-
Benjamin Munson
,
Kayleigh Ryherd
Abstract
Previous research has shown that listeners’ identification of English anterior sibilant fricatives changes depending on whether they are primed to believe that the talker is a woman or a man. This article explored how stable this effect is across two types of priming. Listeners identified a nine-step shack-sack continuum created by combining an /s/-/ʃ/continuum with a natural production of a VC that had been acoustically manipulated to be gender-neutral. In the explicit-priming condition, the talker’s sex was primed by providing a picture of a man or a woman. In the implicit-priming condition, the talker’s sex was primed by having listeners judge the grammaticality of acoustically gender-neutral sentences that implied the talker was either a woman or a man. The effect of sex priming was strongest in the explicit condition, and it was in the expected direction: more sack judgments were elicited for trials where a man’s face was used as a prime. The influence of sex priming on fricative identification was weaker in the implicit condition, but in the expected direction. Together, these data show that gender normalization effects in fricative perception occur most strongly when the talker’s gender is suggested very explicitly by showing a picture of the talker. The small size of the effect questions an interpretation of Strand and Johnson’s effect as evidence that social variables influence speech perception pervasively.
Acknowledgments
Stimulus preparation and data collection was supported by a Research Experience for Undergraduates grant from the National Science Foundation to the University of Minnesota Center for Cognitive Sciences. Participant funds were supported by the University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts. A pilot study of this experiment was conducted as the third author’s undergraduate thesis at Vassar College, using materials developed jointly by the first and third authors. We gratefully acknowledge Janet K. Andrews for her input to that document.
Appendix.
Sentences used in the grammaticality judgment task. Ungrammatical versions are indicated by an asterisk
Feminine bias
Rebecca wore a delicate barrette.
*Rebecca wear a delicate barrette.
The ballet will begin at nine.
*The ballet will began at nine.
Hannah took my pink coat.
*Hannah took my coat pink.
The dainty ring glittered in the light.
*The dainty ring glitter in the light.
Put a ribbon around your ponytail.
*Put a ribbon around you ponytail.
Laura wore eyeliner quite often.
*Laura wore quite often eyeliner.
I met my friend Martha at the café.
*I met friend Martha at the café.
My fur handbag will be perfect.
*My fur handbag will are perfect.
A pedicure would be lovely.
*A pedicure would not lovely.
The makeup Kathy wore felt cakey.
*The makeup Kathy wore feel cakey.
Masculine bias
Daniel played football after dinner.
*Daniel play football after dinner.
The warrior will defeat the enemy.
*The warrior will be defeat the enemy.
Robert broke my hockey helmet.
*Robert broke my helmet hockey.
The lieutenant ordered the private to fire.
*The lieutenant order the private to fire.
Point your rifle toward a deer.
*Point your rifle toward be deer.
Eric tackled a little boy.
*Eric tackling a little boy.
I locked the gun in a black cabinet.
*I locked gun in a black cabinet.
My Harley will need a tune-up.
*My Harley will not a tune-up.
Tough people never give up.
*Tough guy never give up.
Wayne became captain of their team.
*Wayne become captain of their team.
Neutral
They ate turkey for dinner.
*They ate turkey of dinner.
The movie will be over late.
*The movie will been over late.
I brought my portable radio.
*I brought my radio portable.
The crack in the window grew bigger.
*The crack in the window grow bigger.
Open the door to the bedroom.
*Open the door to bedroom.
We walked around the block.
*We walking around the block.
I put the blue marker in the cup.
*I put the blue marker the cup in.
The apple will be brown tomorrow.
*The apple will are brown tomorrow.
A bagel would be good.
*A bagel would not good.
We worked out every morning.
*We worked out the morning.
References
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278.10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001Search in Google Scholar
Blair, Irene V. 2002. The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review 6(3). 242–261.10.1207/S15327957PSPR0603_8Search in Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5(9/10). 341–345.Search in Google Scholar
Breen, Mara. 2014. Empirical investigations of the role of implicit prosody in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(2). 37–50.10.1111/lnc3.12061Search in Google Scholar
Drager, Katie. 2011. Speaker age and vowel perception. Language and Speech 54(1). 99–121.10.1177/0023830910388017Search in Google Scholar
Fuchs, Susanne & Martine Toda. 2010. Do differences in male versus female /s/reflect biological or sociophonetic factors? In Susanne Fuchs, Martine Toda & Marzena Źygis (eds.), Turbulent Sounds: An Interdisciplinary Guide, 281–302. New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226584.281Search in Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Katie Drager. 2010. Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48(4). 865–892.10.1515/ling.2010.027Search in Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Aaron Nolan & Katie Drager. 2006a. From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review 23(3). 351–379.10.1515/TLR.2006.014Search in Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Paul Warren & Katie Drager. 2006b. Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics 34(4). 458–484.10.1016/j.wocn.2005.10.001Search in Google Scholar
Hermes, Dik J. & Joost C. Van Gestel. 1991. The frequency scale of speech intonation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90(1). 97–102.10.1121/1.402397Search in Google Scholar
Hess, Thomas M., Joey T. Hinson & Jill A. Statham. 2004. Explicit and implicit stereotype activation effects on memory: Do age and awareness moderate the effect of priming? Psychology and Aging 19(3). 495–505.10.1037/0882-7974.19.3.495Search in Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, J., Laura A. Getty, Michael J. Clark & Kimberlee Wheeler. 1995. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 97(5). 3099–3111.10.1121/1.411872Search in Google Scholar
Holliday, Jeffery J., Patrick F. Reidy, Mary E. Beckman & Jan Edwards. 2015. Quantifying the robustness of the English sibilant fricative contrast in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 58(3). 622–637.10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-14-0090Search in Google Scholar
Jannedy, Stefanie, Melanie Weirich & Jana Brunner. 2011. The Effect of Inferences on the Perceptual Categorization of Berlin German Fricatives. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2011), 962–965. Department of Chinese, Translation & Linguistics, City University of Hong Kong.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 2006. Resonance in an exemplar-based lexicon: The emergence of social identity and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34(4). 485–499.10.1016/j.wocn.2005.08.004Search in Google Scholar
Jongman, Allard, Ratree Wayland & Serena Wong. 2000. Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 108(3). 1252–1263.10.1121/1.1288413Search in Google Scholar
Julien, Hannah & Benjamin Munson. 2012. Modifying speech to children based on their perceived phonetic accuracy. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 55(6). 1836–1849.10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0131)Search in Google Scholar
Li, Fangfang, Drew Rendall, Paul Vasey, Melissa Kinsman, Amanda Ward-Sutherland & Giancarlo Diano. 2016. The development of sex/gender-specific /s/and its relationship to gender identity in children and adolescents. Journal of Phonetics 57(1). 59–70.10.1016/j.wocn.2016.05.004Search in Google Scholar
Linville, Sue Ellen. 1998. Acoustic correlates of perceived versus actual sexual orientation in men’s speech. Folia Phoniatrica ed Logopaedica 50(1). 35–48.10.1159/000021447Search in Google Scholar
Mack, Sara & Benjamin Munson. 2012. The association between /s/quality and perceived sexual orientation of men’s voices: Implicit and explicit measures. Journal of Phonetics 40(1). 198–212.10.1016/j.wocn.2011.10.002Search in Google Scholar
Maniwa, Kazumi, Allard Jongman & Travis Wade. 2009. Acoustic characteristics of clearly spoken English fricatives. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125(6). 3962–3973.10.1121/1.2990715Search in Google Scholar
Mann, Virginia & Bruno Repp. 1980. Influence of vocalic context on perception of the [ʃ]-[s] distinction. Perception and Psychophysics 28(3). 213–228.10.3758/BF03204377Search in Google Scholar
McMurray, Bob & Allard Jongman. 2011. What Information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations. Psychological Review 118(2). 219–246.10.1037/a0022325Search in Google Scholar
Munson, Benjamin. 2007. The acoustic correlates of perceived masculinity, perceived femininity, and perceived sexual orientation. Language and Speech 50(1). 125–142.10.1177/00238309070500010601Search in Google Scholar
Munson, Benjamin. 2011. The influence of actual and imputed talker gender on fricative perception, revisited. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(5). 2631–2634.10.1121/1.3641410Search in Google Scholar
Munson, Benjamin, Laura Crocker, Janet B. Pierrehumbert, Allison Owen-Anderson & Kenneth J. Zucker. 2015. Gender typicality in children’s speech: A comparison of the speech of boys with and without gender identity disorder. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 137(2). 1995–2003.10.1121/1.4916202Search in Google Scholar
Munson, Benjamin, Sarah V. Jefferson & Elizabeth C. McDonald. 2006a. The influence of perceived sexual orientation on fricative identification. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(4). 2427–2437.10.1121/1.2173521Search in Google Scholar
Munson, Benjamin, Julie Johnson & Jan Edwards. 2012. The role of experience in the perception of phonetic detail in children’s speech: A comparison of speech-language pathologists with clinically untrained listeners. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 21(2). 124–139.10.1044/1058-0360(2011/11-0009)Search in Google Scholar
Munson, Benjamin, Elizabeth C. McDonald, Nancy L. DeBoe & Aubrey R. White. 2006b. The acoustic and perceptual bases of judgments of women and men’s sexual orientation from read speech. Journal of Phonetics 34(2). 202–240.10.1016/j.wocn.2005.05.003Search in Google Scholar
Niedzielski, Nancy. 1999. The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18(1). 62–85.10.1177/0261927X99018001005Search in Google Scholar
Norris, Dennis, James McQueen & Anne Cutler. 2003. Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology 47(2). 204–238.10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00006-9Search in Google Scholar
Obrecht, Dean H. 1965. Toward automated phonological mapping. Linguistics 17(3). 21–36.10.1515/ling.1965.3.17.21Search in Google Scholar
Peterson, Gordon E. & Harold L. Barney. 1952. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24(2). 175–184.10.1121/1.1906875Search in Google Scholar
Pharao, Nicholai, Marie Maegaard, Janus Spindler Møller & Tore Kristiansen. 2014. Indexical meanings of [s+] among Copenhagen youth: Social perception of a phonetic variant in different prosodic contexts. Language in Society 43(1). 1–31.10.1017/S0047404513000857Search in Google Scholar
Rudman, Laurie A., Richard D. Ashmore & Melvin L. Gary. 2001. ‘Unlearning’ automatic biases: The malleability of implicit stereotypes and prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(5). 856–868.10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.856Search in Google Scholar
Strand, Elizabeth & Keith Johnson. 1996. Gradient and visual speaker normalization in the perception of fricatives. In Dafydd Gibbon (ed.), Natural Language Processing and Speech Technology: Results of the 3rd KONVENS Conference, Bielefeld, 14–26. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110821895-003Search in Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2007. Empirical evidence for gendered speech production: /s/in Glaswegian. In Jennifer Cole & Jose I. Hualde (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 9, 65–86. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Traunmüller, Hartmut. 1990. Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88(1). 97–91.10.1121/1.399849Search in Google Scholar
Walker, Abby. 2008. Phonetic Detail and Grammaticality Judgements. Christchurch, NZ: University of Canterbury MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Walker, Abby, Christina García, Yomi Cortés & Kathryn. Campbell-Kibler. 2014. Comparing social meanings across listener and speaker groups: The indexical field of Spanish /s/. Language Variation and Change 26(2). 169–189.10.1017/S0954394514000088Search in Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611759Search in Google Scholar
Willis, Clodius. 1972. Perception of vowel phonemes in Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada, and Buffalo, New York: An application of synthetic vowel categorization tests to dialectology. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 15(2). 246–255.10.1044/jshr.1502.246Search in Google Scholar
Winn, Matthew, Ariane Rhone, Monita Chatterjee & William Idsardi. 2013. The use of auditory and visual context in speech perception by listeners with normal hearing and listeners with cochlear implants. Frontiers in Psychology 4(4). 824.10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00824Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction: Tracing the origin of /s/ variation
- Variability in /s/ among transgender speakers: Evidence for a socially grounded account of gender and sibilants
- The development of gender-specific patterns in the production of voiceless sibilant fricatives in Mandarin Chinese
- The substance of style: Gender, social class and interactional stance in /s/-fronting in southeast England
- Implicit and explicit gender priming in English lingual sibilant fricative perception
- The embedded indexical value of /s/-fronting in Afrikaans and South African English
- On the influence of coronal sibilants and stops on the perception of social meanings in Copenhagen Danish
- Tracing the indexicalization of the notion “Helsinki s”
- Comment: The most perfect of signs: Iconicity in variation
- Publications received between 2 June 2016 and 1 June 2017
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction: Tracing the origin of /s/ variation
- Variability in /s/ among transgender speakers: Evidence for a socially grounded account of gender and sibilants
- The development of gender-specific patterns in the production of voiceless sibilant fricatives in Mandarin Chinese
- The substance of style: Gender, social class and interactional stance in /s/-fronting in southeast England
- Implicit and explicit gender priming in English lingual sibilant fricative perception
- The embedded indexical value of /s/-fronting in Afrikaans and South African English
- On the influence of coronal sibilants and stops on the perception of social meanings in Copenhagen Danish
- Tracing the indexicalization of the notion “Helsinki s”
- Comment: The most perfect of signs: Iconicity in variation
- Publications received between 2 June 2016 and 1 June 2017
