Recent empirical studies have highlighted the large degree of analytic flexibility in data analysis that can lead to substantially different conclusions based on the same data set. Thus, researchers have expressed their concerns that these researcher degrees of freedom might facilitate bias and can lead to claims that do not stand the test of time. Even greater flexibility is to be expected in fields in which the primary data lend themselves to a variety of possible operationalizations. The multidimensional, temporally extended nature of speech constitutes an ideal testing ground for assessing the variability in analytic approaches, which derives not only from aspects of statistical modeling but also from decisions regarding the quantification of the measured behavior. In this study, we gave the same speech-production data set to 46 teams of researchers and asked them to answer the same research question, resulting in substantial variability in reported effect sizes and their interpretation. Using Bayesian meta-analytic tools, we further found little to no evidence that the observed variability can be explained by analysts’ prior beliefs, expertise, or the perceived quality of their analyses. In light of this idiosyncratic variability, we recommend that researchers more transparently share details of their analysis, strengthen the link between theoretical construct and quantitative system, and calibrate their (un)certainty in their conclusions.

No abstract

Scientific studies of language span across many disciplines and provide evidence for social, cultural, cognitive, technological, and biomedical studies of human nature and behavior. By becoming increasingly empirical and quantitative, linguistics has been facing challenges and limitations of the scientific practices that pose barriers to reproducibility and replicability. One of the proposed solutions to the widely acknowledged reproducibility and replicability crisis has been the implementation of transparency practices, e.g. open access publishing, preregistrations, sharing study materials, data, and analyses, performing study replications and declaring conflicts of interest. Here, we have assessed the prevalence of these practices in randomly sampled 600 journal articles from linguistics across two time points. In line with similar studies in other disciplines, we found a moderate amount of articles published open access, but overall low rates of sharing materials, data, and protocols, no preregistrations, very few replications and low rates of conflict of interest reports. These low rates have not increased noticeably between 2008/2009 and 2018/2019, pointing to remaining barriers and slow adoption of open and reproducible research practices in linguistics. As linguistics has not yet firmly established transparency and reproducibility as guiding principles in research, we provide recommendations and solutions for facilitating the adoption of these practices.

Scientific studies of language span across many disciplines and provide evidence for social, cultural, cognitive, technological, and biomedical studies of human nature and behavior. By becoming increasingly empirical and quantitative, linguistics has been facing challenges and limitations of the scientific practices that pose barriers to reproducibility and replicability. One of the proposed solutions to the widely acknowledged reproducibility and replicability crisis has been the implementation of transparency practices, e.g. open access publishing, preregistrations, sharing study materials, data, and analyses, performing study replications and declaring conflicts of interest. Here, we have assessed the prevalence of these practices in randomly sampled 600 journal articles from linguistics across two time points. In line with similar studies in other disciplines, we found a moderate amount of articles published open access, but overall low rates of sharing materials, data, and protocols, no preregistrations, very few replications and low rates of conflict of interest reports. These low rates have not increased noticeably between 2008/2009 and 2018/2019, pointing to remaining barriers and slow adoption of open and reproducible research practices in linguistics. As linguistics has not yet firmly established transparency and reproducibility as guiding principles in research, we provide recommendations and solutions for facilitating the adoption of these practices.

This book provides a full overview of what Geoff Lindsey terms 'Contemporary British Standard Speech'. Despite the broad subject matter, it is clear, concise and readable, and only 100 pages long. High levels of phonetic detail are provided. It appears to be pitched as an expanded pronunciation guide, predominantly aimed at those teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL), seen in the notes throughout giving suggestions on acquiring the sounds as second language (L2) speakers. In discussing variation and recent changes, it also attracts the interest of sociolinguists.The introductory chapter gives an excellent historical overview of RP [Received Pronunciation], situating its status within the colonial structure of the British Empire. It concludes by placing the end of RP at the end of the 20th century, with the demise of the British Empire, when the British standard was no longer enforced. From a social and educational perspective, this is a very clear point of change but leads to a disagreement in terminology with some using 'modern RP' or 'advanced RP' from the 1970s onwards (Gimson 1970: 88; Fabricius 2000: 31), and others, including Lindsey in the rest of the book, using 'Standard Southern British' (SSB) or equivalent terms such as 'Standard Southern British English' (Deterding 1997) or Southern English (Ball 1984) through the twentieth century. The different terminologies also reveal a disagreement over whether RP still exists; for Lindsey it ends after the end of the British Empire, but others disagree. Trudgill (2008: 4) explicitly states that while the ideology that created RP no longer has the same status within the British educational and social system, the accent still exists, with no fewer native speakers -a view that is still under debate (Fabricius 2019, Halfacre & Khattab 2019). There is modern study of these suggested native speakers available, implying ongoing debate on RP's status, for example, Fabricius (2007) and Badia Barrera (2015), which Lindsey has not fully engaged with. This issue is ongoing through the book; when accent features are reported on, it remains unclear who the speakers are.The chapters walk us through all possible aspects of accent in six broad parts. Within these a systematic description of the phonology of SSB is given, including every part of the phonemic inventory and other phonetic phenomena.Part I covers two factors common in public discussion surrounding accent change: the effect of writing and the effect of American English. The effect of writing results from increased literacy in the nineteenth century (from 50% to nearly 100% of the population). As it increased, the belief grew that written forms had more authority than spoken ones and pronunciations that had changed from the spelling returned to them, e.g. towards from /tç˘dz/ to /t´ wç˘dz/. To me, this effect seems logical, but considering that highly educated RP speakers were likely part of the 50% who were already literate, it is surprising that the demonstrated effect of writing is so strong. If the effect ...