A review of speech identi¢cation studies examining the abilities of listeners to distinguish African American and European American voices shows that Americans can recognize many African American voices with a high degree of accuracy even in the absence of stereotypical morphosyntactic and lexical features. Experiments to determine what cues listeners use to distinguish ethnicity have not yielded such consistent results, perhaps suggesting that listeners may access a wide variety of cues if necessary. An experiment involving African Americans with features of a European American vernacular demonstrated that African Americans with atypical features are di⁄cult for listeners to identify. Analysis suggested that vowel quality and intonation could have misled respondents but did not rule out timing and voice quality as factors in identi¢cation.

No abstract

Although there is a well-established tradition of social engagement in sociolinguistics, there is little explicit discussion of the rationale, methods, and procedures for implementing the principle of linguistic gratuity. What approaches to the dissemination of sociolinguistic information must be adopted with communities and with the general public when language diversity is interpreted in terms of a prescriptive, correctionist model? What venues, activities, and products are the most effective in dialect awareness programs? And how does linguistcommunity collaboration work on a practical level? We consider theoretical, methodological, and practical issues in sociolinguistic engagement and dialect awareness outreach programs based on a range of experience in a variety of local and general public venues. The approach is based on the principle that the public is inherently curious about language differences and that this intrigue can be transformed into informal and formal public education. It is further premised on evidence that language differences can be linked to legitimate historical and cultural legacies, and that positively framed presentations of language differences in sociocultural and sociohistorical contexts can effectively counter dominant, seemingly unassailable ideologies in non-confrontational ways. A variety of venues are considered in collaborative engagement, including video documentaries, oral history CDs, museum exhibits, formal curricular programs, and popular trade books on language differences. Challenges in operationalizing linguistic gratuity include working with the community; balancing community linguistic expertise and community perspectives; design and audience, and practical logistical issues.

Current work in linguistics is not well represented in the school curriculum in the USA, partly because of a mismatch with traditional foci in the K‐12 (kindergarten through twelfth grade) standard course of studies and because there are very few materials for teaching about the nature of language and language variation. This article sketches the process of developing curricular materials to accompany the 3‐hour video documentary, Do You Speak American? and suggests some of the decisions that must be made in developing materials for educational settings concerning scientific knowledge about language.

Despite studies such as Biber (1988), quantitative methodologies remain under-exploited resources in discourse analysis. This study employs a quantitative, statistical approach to re-examine and rethink the rather well-explored topic of register. Using the extensively documented register of Sports Announcer Talk (SAT) as a case study, careful quantitative analysis exposes the limitations of traditional descriptive approaches to registers. Quantitative analysis reveals significant inter-register variation in the distribution of core SAT features in a television broadcast and a radio broadcast of a basketball game. Further, SAT features appear to function differently in the broadcasts: out of necessity in the radio broadcast and symbolically in the television broadcast. Such inter-register variation of variable frequency and feature function may be a product of differences in communication situation and communicative function related to broadcast media. Quantitative approaches allow more precise defining of (sub)registers and provide the researcher insight into the communicative function of discourse features.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract