annurev.anthro.34.081804.120633.pdf

ANRV323-AN36-06 ARI 20 August 2007 15:30

SociophoneticsJennifer Hay and Katie DragerDepartment of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 8141;email: [email protected], [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007. 36:89103

First published online as a Review in Advance onMay 24, 2007

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

This articles doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120633

Copyright c 2007 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0084-6570/07/1021-0089$20.00

Key Words

phonetics, sociolinguistics, ethnography, variation, discourse

AbstractInvestigators have recently made impressive progress in multipleareas of sociophonetics. One area is the use of increasingly sophisti-cated phonetic analysis, which is demonstrating that very ne pho-netic detail is used for the construction of social identity. A secondarea is the use of ethnographic approaches, which enable researchersto break free from using traditional social categories that may not berelevant for a particular group of speakers, and to investigate in depththe social meaning of particular phonetic variants. A third area is theapplication of experimental techniques to probe listeners uses of so-ciophonetic detail in speech perception. These research directionsare currently pursued by largely disjoint research communities, andthe innovations are seldom combined within the scope of a singlestudy. We argue that it is the combination of all these approachesthat holds the key to an integrated understanding of how phoneticvariation is produced, performed, and perceived in its social context.

89

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Sociophonetics:the study of sociallyconditioned phoneticvariation in speech

Variable: a set ofalternative ways ofsaying the samething, although thealternatives will havesocial signicance(Fasold 1990,pp. 22324)

INTRODUCTION

Language varies. This observation is the cor-nerstone of sociolinguistic research. Variationexists at every level of linguistic representa-tion, but the study of socially conditionedvariation has concentrated more on phonet-ics than on any other language domain. As aresult, it is now well documented that the pho-netic realization of any particular word canvary according to the speaker, the linguisticand social context, the topic, the addressee,the intentional stance taken by the speaker,and a myriad of other factors. Social identi-ties are transmitted and constructed simulta-neously with linguistic content.

In fact, the phonetic realizations producedacross different speakers and contexts are solayered with social meaning that it is amazingthat listeners are even able to identify differenttokens as having the same referent, especiallygiven the subtlety of the variation. A recentand rapid increase in the use of instrumentalphonetic techniques for the analysis of pho-netic variation is beginning to reveal that evenextremely ne phonetic details are learned andtransmitted for social means. Many of thesestudies have revealed variation that appears tobe highly systematic, despite being so subtlethat it is difcult to analyze auditorily. Thisnding raises the question of how such sub-tle phonetic detail can possibly be learned andstored.

Researchers have increasingly begun toconsider social variation and speech produc-tion/perception together. This sociophoneticapproach has led to advances in both eldsand the emergence of a range of new researchquestions. Phoneticians are increasingly turn-ing to social variation as something that mayhold the key to breakthroughs in the under-standing of speech production and percep-tion. Sociolinguists, in turn, stand to bene-t from an increasingly sophisticated view ofhow individuals and groups are able to imbuetheir speech with social meaning.

In parallel with these developments, somesociolinguists are starting to take more se-

riously the social side of their endeavorby adopting ethnographic approaches. Theirethnographic work is revealing that socialmeaning is much more nuanced and layeredthan traditional social categorization wouldsuggest and that a more sophisticated un-derstanding of individuals social worlds cangreatly enhance our understanding of theways in which speech is used to express so-cial meaning. However, this line of researchis not yet commonly combined with sophisti-cated acoustic analysis, nor have the ndingsbeen adequately considered by researchersconcerned with enhancing models of speechproduction and speech perception to accom-modate sociolinguistic variation.

Great progress has been made recentlyboth on the socio and the phonetic sideof sociophonetics, but there is a dearth ofwork that takes these recent breakthroughsand unites them within the scope of a sin-gle study. Although this article is a reviewand outlines relevant recent work, one maingoal of the review is to emphasize the workthat has not yet been done. We argue thatthe eld would benet from research combin-ing an ethnographic approach with both ne-grained phonetic analysis and experimentalmethodologies. The results of such researchshould be used to inform work pursuing uni-ed models of the perception and produc-tion of linguistic and social meaning. Fur-thermore, we argue that researchers shoulddevelop research agendas that are pattern-driven, rather than variable-driven, investi-gating the multidimensional patterns of fac-tors woven together by speakers to constructsocial identities.

FOUNDATIONS OFSOCIOPHONETICS

Different individuals pronounce sounds dif-ferently from one another, and some of thisphonetic variation depends on the social char-acteristics of the speaker. Work demonstrat-ing such links is founded largely on the early

90 Hay Drager

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


work of Labov in New York City (1966, 1972)and Marthas Vineyard (1963). In these stud-ies, Labov elegantly demonstrated that thefrequency of use of phonetic variants system-atically varies with age, social class, speakerstyle, and integration into the local commu-nity. Many studies inspired by this line ofresearch have further documented the re-markable systematicity of socially conditionedphonetic variation (see, e.g., Wolfram 1969,Cedergren 1973, Trudgill 1974, Macaulay1977, Modaressi 1978, Romaine 1978, Guy1981, Horvath 1985, Milroy 1987, to namebut a few). In this sociolinguistic tradition,data are usually collected through a series ofinterviews with participants, often stratiedby age, gender, and social class. Most of thiswork consists of auditory analysis of variablesinto (often binary) phonetic categories.

This methodology has made impressiveinroads into the study of language change byinvoking the so-called apparent time hypoth-esis. According to the apparent time hypoth-esis, individuals phonological systems andaccents remain stable throughout their adult-hood. For this reason, any observed differ-ences between younger and older speakersrecorded at the same time are generally con-sidered to be indicative of changes in progress(see discussion in Bailey 2001).

Some recent work has challenged theapparent time hypothesis by studying thespeech of individuals throughout their life-times. Probably the most notable study in thisrespect analyzed Queen Elizabeths vowelsduring her annual Christmas message broad-cast. The realization of the Queens vowels hasshifted considerably over time (Harringtonet al. 2000, 2005). Although such results chal-lenge the spirit of the apparent time hypoth-esis, they do not negate its legitimacy as amethodological tool. If individuals shift in thedirection of changes-in-progress throughouttheir lifetimes, then apparent time studies willsimply tend to underestimate the speed ofchange.

In addition to the socially indexical, in-terindividual differences in pronunciation, it

Auditory (phonetic)analysis: amethodology inwhich a trainedphonetician analyzesspeech sounds by ear,usually by relatingthem to learnedauditory referencepoints

Acoustic phoneticanalysis: the use ofinstrumentaltechniques to studythe physicalproperties of speechsounds

is also clear that individuals vary their speechfrom moment to moment in the performanceof linguistic style, and this has been an-other focus of sociophonetic research. A largeamount of the research conducted on stylis-tic variation has investigated how speakersalter their speech in response to changes inthe setting or context. Much work has inves-tigated changes in formality of setting (fol-lowing Labov 1972) and also the importanceof changes in the composition of the audi-ence (following Bell 1984). Bells audience de-sign theory holds that style derives its mean-ing from the association of linguistic featureswith particular social groups (2001, p. 142)and that speakers design their style primar-ily for their audiences, generally resulting in ashift toward the speech style of their audience.Quantitative work has shown a remarkable de-gree of ne control by individuals as they varytheir speech across different contexts. Exam-ples of this work include studies by Rickford& McNair-Knox (1994), who demonstratethe shifting of an African American teenageracross different interviewers and differenttopics, and Coupland (1984), who studied aCardiff travel agent and demonstrated theremarkable capacity she had to approximaterates of nonstandard variables used by herclients. Hay et al. (1999) found that phoneticvariants in the speech of the television pre-senter Oprah Winfrey could be predicted bythe ethnicity of the referee. Topic-based styleshifting is also predicted by Bells account, butthis is claimed to derive from the associationof topics with typical audience members.

PUSHING THE PHONETICAGENDA FORWARD

Much of the sociophonetic methodology usessolely auditory analysis and typically treatsvariables as binary. Part of the reason for thisis no doubt historical: To conduct an audi-tory analysis, all that one needs is a good taperecorder. Acoustic analysis, at least until re-cently, required specialized equipment. Oneadditional reason why sociolinguists continue

www.annualreviews.org Sociophonetics 91

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Categoricalvariable: categoricalvariables consist ofseveral discretecategories (e.g.,variation betweenthe presence orabsence of /r/following vowels)

Formant: a resonantfrequency of aspeech sound. Thetwo lowest formantsof vowels can berelated to their placeof articulation

to analyze variants into categories is likelyto be methodologicalthe predominant sta-tistical analysis technique in which sociolin-guists are trained takes categorical variabledata as input (variable rule analysis; see, e.g.,Tagliamonte 2006).

In actuality, phonetic variants are oftenarbitrary points along an often multidimen-sional continuum, and auditory analysis failsto capture the full extent of the continuum.This is most obviously true for vowels. Forthis reason, we also nd a relatively strong tra-dition of investigating acoustic vowel qualityas part of sociolinguistic studies. In such stud-ies, which are increasingly more common, an-alysts measure the rst and second formants ofvowels to position them in a two-dimensionalvowel space (see e.g., Labov et al. 1972,Maclagan 1982, Veatch 1991, McClure 1995,Roberts 1997, Ito 1999, Thomas 2001, amongmany others). This enables us to capture rela-tively ne-grained differences in vowel qualityacross different speakers and contexts. How-ever, it is not just vowel quality that can benetfrom detailed acoustic analysis. Work in pho-netics reveals that contrasts between vowelscan be maintained with subtle differences intrajectory (Thomas 2002, Maclagan & Hay2007), duration (Wassink 2001), and voicequality (Di Paolo & Faber 1990). These al-most certainly vary in sociolinguistically in-teresting ways across speakers and contexts,but inclusion of such types of analysis is notyet routine in most sociophonetic studies.

Acoustic analysis of sociolinguistic varia-tion has been restricted almost entirely tovowels, leading to a recent chorus of calls forextending the domain of attention. Thomas(2002) pleads for more attention to conso-nants, prosody, and voice quality. Foulkes(2002) and Docherty & Foulkes (1999) makea similar case.

Podesva (2006) argues that much of soci-olinguistics has focused on phonological vari-ation, ignoring phonetic detail. He claims, andwe would certainly agree, that an approachtaking into account the phonetic details ofvariation can bring to the surface a rich palate

of meanings that can not be accessed by cat-egorical investigations alone (p. iv). He con-ducts a detailed study of the speech of threegay men across multiple contexts, showinghow phonetic detail is used to construct socialmeaning. He does this with a careful analy-sis of the duration and intensity of /t/ release,phonetic properties of intonational variation,and the phonetic properties of falsetto voicequality. This work provides a clear illustrationof how speakers make use of relatively subtlephonetic variation for social means.

Docherty & Foulkess (1999, 2005) de-tailed acoustic analysis of /t/ uncovers varia-tion that is highly systematic and yet so subtlethat it is extremely difcult to perceive au-ditorily. Despite a small auditory differencebetween the investigated variants, Docherty& Foulkes (2005) found that intervocalicand prepausal /t/ in Newcastle and DerbyEnglish varies depending on a speakers so-cial group. Furthermore, Foulkes et al. (1999,2001, 2005) show evidence of children be-tween 2 and 4 acquiring the range of variantsknown to be sociophonetically salient withintheir community, some of which involve ahighly complex degree of coordination be-tween oral and laryngeal gestures.

Although /t/ has probably received themost widespread sociophonetic attention, theacoustic analysis of other consonants has alsobeen revealing. For example, Stuart-Smith(2004) showed that speakers in Glasgow ma-nipulate the spectral energy of /s/ to sig-nal speaker gender. Investigating intrusive /r/in New Zealand English, Hay & Maclagan(2006; J. Hay & M. Maclagan, submittedmanuscript) found a correlation between thesocial class of the speaker and the degree ofconstriction they used when producing an /r/.

Recent work is also progressing our under-standing of how the phonetic detail of intona-tion, rhythm, pitch, and voice quality can dif-fer across different speakers, speaker groups,and contexts. For example, the formaliza-tion of measurements of speaker rhythm(e.g., the Pairwise Variability Index; Grabe &Low 2002) enables quantication of degrees

92 Hay Drager

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


of syllable-timing in individuals speech.Rhythm differs considerably across dialects ofEnglish (Grabe & Low 2002) and has sur-faced as a marker of ethnicity within somecommunities, indexing, for example, Latinoidentity in the United States (Carter 2005)and Maori ethnicity in New Zealand (Szakay2006). Pitch also seems to function as a markerof Maori identity in New Zealand (Szakay2006). Researchers are starting to focus someattention on the social meanings associ-ated with different voice qualities (see, e.g.,Mendoza-Denton & Jannedy 1998, Podesva2006, Starr & Greene 2006) and on the pho-netic properties of intonation contours acrossspeakers [see, e.g., Warrens observation thatNew Zealand men rise early (Warren 2005,p. 228)]. Jannedy & Mendoza-Denton (2005)also investigate the relationship between pat-terns of intonation and nonverbal gestures.

The combined evidence from acousticwork on vowels, consonants, and supraseg-mental patterns demonstrates that ne pho-netic detail is certainly available, and is used,for the construction of social meaning. Yet so-ciolinguists have really only begun to explorethe extent to which nuanced phonetic varia-tion is socially patterned, and we do not yetunderstand what the limits are on such pat-terning. Certainly there is a strong case forabandoning the assumption that social mean-ing is best analyzed in terms of frequency ofuse of particular segmental variants and in-stead for systematically investigating the pho-netic detail underpinning these variants.

PUSHING THE SOCIAL AGENDAFORWARD

Traditionally, sociolinguists have focused onpredetermined social categories such as age,ethnicity, gender, and social class. This fo-cus is also present in the majority of recentwork described above, much of which is at-tempting more sophisticated acoustic analy-sis of how phonetic detail is associated withsuch categories. Although these studies cer-tainly add valuable insight into how language

Syllable-timing: forsyllable-timing, asopposed tostress-timing, eachsyllable takes roughlyan equal amount oftime to produce

works, they fall short of capturing the widerange of social factors that could inuence thepatterning of phonetic variation.

An ethnographic approach could providea sociophonetician with information regard-ing the social makeup of a given speechcommunityinformation that would not oth-erwise be found. Employing an ethnographicapproach to determine locally relevant socialcategories enables researchers to break freefrom the mold of using predetermined cate-gories that may or may not be relevant for aparticular group of speakers.

Sociolinguistic work seeking to adoptethnographic methodologies from anthropol-ogy can also provide important insights intothe broad correlations that have long been ob-served by the sociolinguistic survey tradition.Ethnographic work can reveal the indirectnature of these correlations. Phonetic vari-ables can index stances (for example, tough-ness), and these stances may broadly corre-late with different social groupings (see, e.g.,Ochs 1992). An ethnographic focus providesthe potential to identify how phonetic vari-ables are used as a resource to construct so-cial meaninga question Eckert identies asshaping the third wave of variation studies(Eckert 2005).

Recent research that utilizes an ethno-graphic approach has revealed how locallyrelevant social categories covary with pho-netic variants (e.g., Bucholtz 1996; Mendoza-Denton 1997; Eckert 1989, 2000; Lawson2005; Zhang 2005; Rose 2006; Drager 2006b).For example, by conducting an ethnographyat a U.S. high school, Eckert (2000) was able toidentify the social categories jock and burnoutthat were relevant for students at the school,and she demonstrated how variation in a par-ticular students speech was closely linked towhether that student was classied by theother students as either a jock or a burnout.

Mendoza-Denton (1997) employed anethnographic approach when studying thespeech of girls in Chicana/Mexicana gangsin California. She found that realizations ofthe vowel /i/ could be predicted by centrality


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


of membership to a particular gang. Bucholtz(1996, 1999) examines the linguistic practicesof a group of girl nerds at a U.S. high school.Lawson (2005) showed how realizations of //and pattern with different communitiesof practice at a Glasgow High School. Andthrough conducting eldwork at an all girlshigh school in Christchurch, Drager (2006b)found that monophthongization of the vowelin quotative like was signicantly predicted bywhether a particular girl at the school was ina group that eats lunch in the common roomor not.

Speakers exploit a range of phonetic vari-ables alongside other linguistic and non-linguistic stylistic variables to actively con-struct identities and social meaning (Calif.Style Collect. 1993, Eckert 2000). Eckert(2000) found that clothing of schoolgirls wasclosely related to phonetic variants in the girlsspeech. Mendoza-Denton (1997) found thatthe gang girls with whom she was workingwore varying amounts of eye-liner, and therealizations of /i/ covaried with the lengthof the eyeliner worn by the girls. Eckert(1996) argues that phonetic variants serve asa resource to display both individual iden-tity and group membership. She describeshow variants are manipulated alongside other,nonlinguistic resources, such as nail polishand ways of walking, to construct ones po-sition in the heterosexual marketplace. Thisevidence of covarying linguistic and nonlin-guistic factors makes it necessary to breakdown boundaries between studies of language,gesture, clothing, and other forms of socialsymbolism.

The work on speaker style is also pro-gressing beyond reports of correlationsbetween stylistic contexts and phoneticvariants. Recent work on this topic shows ashift away from reactive accounts and a focuson active and creative speaker agency (see,e.g., Eckert 2000, Mendoza-Denton 2000,Coupland 2001, Mendoza-Denton et al. 2003,Johnstone 2007). Speaking style can be seenas individual speakers creative and proactivedeployment of various elements in their reper-

toire (Hay et al. 1999). Social practice andspeaker agency are key (Schilling-Estes 2001).Stylistic resources are used not only to reectbut also to construct social structures. Inperforming style, the speakers position them-selves with respect to these structures and alsowith respect to the talk itselfi.e., style plays astance-taking role ( Johnstone 2007). Thereis a shift away from broad-scale quantitativeassessments of the correlation between cer-tain linguistic variables and certain addresseesor topics toward qualitative, ethnographicallybased investigations of the performanceof style as individual speakers constantlyreposition themselves relative to the un-folding conversation (Calif. Style Collect.1993, Schilling-Estes 1998, Coupland 2001,Johnstone 2007). Another emerging focusis on how linguistic and nonlinguistic fac-tors work together in the performance ofspeaker style (Mendoza-Denton 1997, Eckert2000).

The recent focus on ethnographic meth-ods as a tool for examining the construc-tion of social meaning is a very welcome de-velopment. However, very few studies havecombined an ethnographic approach with adetailed acoustic analysis of ne phonetic de-tail, despite the clear benets of each. Workto watch along these lines are the stud-ies of high schools by Wagner in SouthPhiladelphia (see, e.g., Wagner 2006) andDrager in New Zealand (e.g., Drager 2006b),both of which combine ethnographic workwith acoustic phonetic analysis. Rose (2006)has also completed an ethnography of a se-nior citizens center in eastern Wisconsin, andher analysis includes some acoustic analysis ofvowels.

Sociophonetics is extending in two ex-citing directions: one that complicates thesocial, and one that complicates the pho-netic. These directions stand to benet theeld most if they are jointly pursued. Fu-ture work in the eld should investigate theextent to which continuous social factorscorrelate with continuous acoustic factorsand the extent to which both correlate

94 Hay Drager

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


with a combination of different nonlinguisticcues.

PHONETIC VARIATION IN ITSDISCOURSE CONTEXT

Speakers use phonetic detail to simultane-ously convey a linguistic message and performaspects of personal identity and group alle-giance. However, the phonetic work does notstop there. Recent work has shown that nedetails of phonetic implementation are highlyinstrumental in the organization of discoursestructure.

Voiceless stops in English (/p/, /t/, and/k/) are generally characterized as display-ing free variation word-nallythey may ormay not be aspirated. However, Local (2003)demonstrates how aspiration can be used asa discourse-marker, indicating turn-nality.The presence or absence of variation, then,is interactionally informative. Subtle phoneticindicators can be employed by speakers (andattended to by listeners) in the negotiation ofturn-taking roles.

Similarly, words and phrases are realizeddifferently to reect the different locally con-textual and interactional roles they are in-tended to play. The production of I think,for example, is different when this phrase playsa lexical role from when it functions as a dis-course marker (Local & Kelly 1986, Local2003). In the latter context, it often surfaceswith glottal friction rather than the interden-tal fricative at the beginning of think. Sim-ilar variability is observed for other phrasesthat can act as discourse markers. Hawkins(2003) argues that the phrase I dont knowcan undergo extreme reduction (e.g., nnn)if accompanied by the correct context, into-nation, and appropriate shoulder movements.Turn-taking and discourse structure are alsonegotiated through the use of length (see,e.g., Fox Tree & Clark 1997, Local & Walker2004), rhythm, pitch, and loudness (Local &Walker 2004).

Current methodologies for the study ofsociophonetic variation tend to extract the

Discourse marker:something (usually aword or phrase) usedto indicate structurein spoken language

relevant tokens from the speech stream andstudy them in isolation from the context inwhich they were produced. Researchers mayrecord the degree to which the word contain-ing the token was stressed, and perhaps thephoneme that preceded and followed it, butare unlikely to attend to the full discourse en-vironment in which it occurred. Future workthat combines careful discourse analysis withdetailed phonetic analysis promises to revealmuch about the ways in which phonetic vari-ability is harnessed for the communication ofinteractional information.

PROGRESSINGSOCIOPHONETICS: LAB-BASEDANTHROPOLOGY?

There are limits, even, to what a phoneticallyrich, ethnographically informed analysis canprovide. The results from the sociophoneticstudies outlined above raise a host of ques-tions relating to the acquisition, transmission,production, and perception of socially condi-tioned phonetic variation.

To what degree are perceivers sensitive tosubtle phonetic differences? To what degreecan social information about the speaker andperceiver predict patterns in speech percep-tion? Who recognizes the social meanings ofparticular variants? Is this social meaning thesame for all speakers and listeners? How isit possible that speakers can learn to producesystematic variation that they do not seem ableto perceive? How can models of speech per-ception and production account for the appar-ently tight links between social and phoneticinformation?

These questions grow naturally from so-ciophonetic work on production, and yet an-swers to them are difcult to achieve with-out incorporating experimental work. Someresearchers have therefore incorporated anexperimental element in their work in an at-tempt to further our understanding of socio-phonetic variation.

One way in which experimental work cancomplement the ethnographic approach is


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Perceptualboundary: the pointbetween twoadjacent soundswhere a listener willstop hearing sound Aand start hearingsound B

through the use of techniques aiming togauge degree of self-identication with var-ious attributes. For example, Johnson (2006)investigates the fronting of // in southeast-ern Michiganusually shown to be more ad-vanced in female speakersand nds thatthe more individuals self-identify on scalesof cheerfulness, warmth, and friendliness, themore their // is fronted. These scales areconsiderably better indicators than are scalesof femininity/masculinity. Conn (2005) com-bines production data with subjective reactiontests to argue that front realizations of /ay/are associated with toughness in Philadelphia.In combination with ethnographic work, thistype of approach seems likely to be an effec-tive means of hypothesis testing in the pursuitof identifying stances associated with the useof different phonetic variants.

If different social meanings are attached toparticular variants, it would seem likely thatindividuals would use phonetic informationto make social judgments about the speaker.Indeed, ample evidence shows that this isthe case. Listeners assign different person-ality traits, such as friendliness or reliability,to speakers of different dialects (Bayard et al.2001). Campbell-Kibler (2006) found thatmanipulating the (i ) variable in recordingsof spontaneous speech altered listeners per-ceptions about the intelligence of the speakerand the formality of the situation. Speakers ofa dialect can use information about the distri-bution of variants within that dialect to makesocial judgements (Gordon 1997, Bayard et al.2001, Docherty et al. 2004, Campbell-Kibler2006).

Although it may be predictable that pho-netic information should affect social judge-ments, a remarkable set of recent ndingsindicates that the converse is also true: Ourprocessing of phonetic information seems tobe heavily inuenced by social facts about thespeaker. Recent experimental results revealthat listener expectations regarding a speakersgender, age, and social class can inuence howspeech is perceived (Strand & Johnson 1996,Johnson et al. 1999, Drager 2006a, Hay et al.

2006b). These results are highly parallel tothe long-established effects of style-shiftingand speech accommodation in production. Inproduction, these results are central to the so-ciophonetic canon. If parallel effects exist inspeech perception, then the inuence of socialfactors on production and perception shouldbe understood within a single framework.

For example, Strand & Johnson (1996)found that participants shifted in their per-ception of a /s/-/

/ continuum depending on

the perceived gender of the speaker. Partici-pants were more likely to perceive a sibilantas /

/ when shown a photograph of a per-

son who in an independent study was ratedas more stereotypically female. This nding isconsistent with differences in production be-tween males and females because females havea higher acoustic boundary between /s/ and/

/ in production. In a related study, Johnsonet al. (1999) found that the perceptual bound-ary between / / and // shifted depending onthe perceived gender of the speaker.

Perceived age also affects speech percep-tion. Drager (2006a) found a link betweenthe perceived age of a voice and the percep-tual boundary between the short front vowels// and /e/, which are involved in an ongo-ing chain shift in New Zealand English. Hayet al. (2006b) found an effect of perceivedage on speech perception and also an effectof perceived social class. They examined per-ception of the centering diphthongs / / and/ /, which are undergoing a merger in NewZealand English. The merger has been led byspeakers from lower socioeconomic classes,resulting in a current difference in productionof the variants based on age and social class.Consequently, Hay et al. found that listen-ers were better able to discriminate between/ / and / / tokens if they thought they werelistening to an older or upper-class speakerthan if they thought they were listening to ayounger or working-class speaker.

Expectations regarding a speakers dialectcan also inuence perception. Niedzielski(1999) found that Detroiters shifted in theirperception of the /au/ diphthong when the

96 Hay Drager

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


word Canadian or Detroiter appeared atthe top of their answer sheet. Hay et al.(2006a) report on a similar effect in NewZealand, where New Zealanders shifted intheir perception of /i/ depending on thepresence of the word Australian or NewZealander. In fact, they observed the differ-ence in perception despite the fact that allbut one of the participants in the Australiancondition indicated that they were aware thatthe speaker was from New Zealand. In afollow-up study, the authors showed that asimilar change in speech perception can beachieved simply by placing a stuffed kanga-roo or a stuffed kiwi in the experiment room(Drager & Hay 2006). It seems that indi-viduals need not actually believe that socialcharacteristics belong to a speaker for thosecharacteristics to affect perception but thatexposure to the mere concept of a particularsocial characteristic is enough to cause a shiftin the perception of at least some variants.

Social information and phonetic informa-tion are linked, and yet the cognitive na-ture of this relationship is still not wellunderstood. One promising avenue of inves-tigation is exemplar theory. In an exemplarmodel of speech production and perception,utterances are stored in the mind as separateexemplars, complete with acoustic/phoneticdetail (see e.g., Goldinger 1997; Johnson1997; Pierrehumbert 2001, 2002; Foulkes &Docherty 2006). Social information about thespeaker is also stored during perception and isindexed to the exemplar (Foulkes & Docherty2006, Hay et al. 2006b). In exemplar theory,then, the cognitive representation of an ut-terance is not an abstract underlying form,but rather a distribution of remembered ex-emplars. Speech perception involves map-ping the acoustic signal to the stored distri-bution on the basis of its similarity to boththe acoustic and social information indexed tothe exemplar. Speech production also exploitsthese stored memories and involves samplingfrom the socially and contextually desired partof the stored distribution and averaging overthe exemplars in the immediate vicinity. In

Exemplar theory:theory of speechperception andproduction in whichencounteredutterances are storedin the mind asseparate exemplars

addition to accounting for the above resultsdemonstrating that social factors can affectspeech perception in addition to speech pro-duction, this theoretical development has mo-tivated much of the recent sociophonetic workon the relationship between social and lin-guistic information in speech perception andcan provide a relatively compelling accountof some classic sociolinguistic ndings, suchas the relationship between the social strati-cation of phonetic variables and their use instyle-shifting (as observed in, e.g., Labov 1972and many other studies).

Exemplar theory as it currently stands alsomakes a number of intriguing hypotheses thatpoint to interesting research directions for so-ciophoneticians. Yet these hypotheses are cur-rently neither explicitly articulated nor tested.One of these hypotheses is that contextual in-formation such as place could cause a shift inthe phonetic variants both produced and per-ceived. If the presence of a stuffed toy in aroom can shift peoples speech perception be-havior (Drager & Hay 2006), then it wouldseem surprising if a shift in the entire loca-tion or context of an interaction did not. Toour knowledge, no linguistic work has exam-ined the inuence of place on style-shifting ineither speech production or speech percep-tion. However, good evidence demonstratesthat conceptual space and language are inex-tricably linked, so much so that children havealready formed language-specic conceptionsof space by the time that they rst begin tospeak (Choi & Bowerman 1991 as describedby Levinson 1996). Recent work in psychol-ogy demonstrates how background informa-tion can inuence visual perception (Honget al. 2000, Peng & Knowles 2003, Nisbett& Miyamoto 2005). Some evidence suggeststhat Westerners and Asians differ in their per-ception of visual stimuli, such that Asians aremore likely to perceive a scene holistically andWesterners are more likely to perceive a sceneanalytically (Norenzayan et al. 2002). Workby Hong et al. (2000) and Peng & Knowles(2003) suggests that bicultural individualsmay shift in whether they perceive a scene


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


holistically or analytically when they areprimed with visual stimuli associated with oneof the two cultures in question. Nisbett &Miyamoto (2005) argue that these differencesin patterns of attention are a result of expo-sure to cultural differences in the perceptualenvironment. If exemplar models are correct,language would also have a strong associationwith place, suggesting that changes in envi-ronment should cause a shift in which pho-netic variants are produced and perceived. Al-though an ethnographic setting would be bestfor studying the effect of place on production,prior experimental work would be useful asan initial, more efcient means of determin-ing which aspects of speech and place appearto have a relationship with one another. Andstudies on how this works in perception wouldbe very challenging indeed without incorpo-rating an experimental component into theoverall research program.

Anthropologists are often highly criticalof experimental work, claiming that individu-als behavior in the lab need not reect theirbehavior in day-to-day life. Although exper-imental results will always be just that, re-searchers can take steps to ensure that theexperimental context resembles to some de-gree the tasks that individuals might reason-ably conduct on a daily basis. In this respect,there is clear scope for a more organic ap-proach to experimental work: for example,conducting experiments in contexts that arefamiliar to the participants, using voices withwhich they are familiar, using real, naturalis-tic recordings as stimuli, etc. If participants inour experiments are also participants in ourethnographies, we will be able to conduct ex-periments that specically probe individualsencoding of the particular linguistic and socialuniverses in which they participate on a dailybasis.

Experimental methods are necessary to ex-amine how subtle differences in perception ofphonetic variables can be inuenced by so-cial information and how shifts in the per-ception of social information can be affectedby phonetic cues. Future investigations along

these lines would help to shed light on howsocial categories are formed and how thesesocial categories are associated with differ-ent variants in speech. Although some workis currently in progress, no one has yet com-pleted a study combining a thorough ethno-graphic approach with experimental methodswhen investigating socially conditioned varia-tion in speech. We predict that work combin-ing the best of both worlds is likely to makethe biggest breakthroughs in advancing ourunderstanding of the nature of sociophoneticvariation over the next decade.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

Just as the meaning of words is dependenton the words with which they co-occur, sothe meaning of particular phonetic detail maybe inuenced by other phonetic and nonpho-netic cues. A high-amplitude nal released/t/ may mean different things for differentgroups, it may mean something different at auniversity than at a barbeque, and it may havea special function turn-nally. But we shouldnot overlook the possibility that the meaningof the released /t/ is also highly interdepen-dent on the realization of other phonetic vari-ants in the context: How are the surroundingconsonants realized? What was the realizationof the surrounding vowels? What was the in-tonation contour? Is the speaker producingcreaky voice? Phonetic meaning may also becodependent on other gestural movements.Thus, although variation studies are currentlystriving to investigate the social meaning of avariety of phonetic variables, we should hopeto move beyond the focus on the variableand move toward studying the semantics ofpatterns of phonetic realization (Calif. StyleCollect. 1993, Docherty 2006).

Impressive progress has been made in ex-tending an ethnographic approach to thestudy of the social meaning of phonetic re-sources, in moving toward studies of the useof ne phonetic detail and constructing exper-imental techniques to probe listeners use ofsociophonetic detail. The combination of all

98 Hay Drager

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


these approaches offers the potential for an in-tegrated understanding of how phonetic vari-

ation is produced, performed, and perceivedin its social context.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity ofthis review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper has beneted from the comments of Alex DArcy, Gerry Docherty, Margaret Macla-gan, Norma Mendoza-Denton, and Heidi Quinn.

LITERATURE CITED

Bailey G. 2001. Real and apparent time. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, ed.JK Chambers, P Trudgill, N. Schilling-Estes, pp. 31232. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Bayard D, Weatherall A, Gallois C, Pittam J. 2001. Pax Americana?: Accent attitudinal evalu-ations in New Zealand, Australia, and America. J. Socioling. 5(1):2249

Bell A. 1984. Language style as audience design. Lang. Soc. 13:145204Bell A. 2001. Back in style: reworking audience design. In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, ed.

P Eckert, JR Rickford, pp. 13969. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressBucholtz M. 1996. Geek the girl: language, femininity, and female nerds. Gender and Be-

lief Systems: Proc. Berkeley Women Lang. Conf., 4th, Berkeley, pp. 11931, ed. N Warner,J Ahlers, L Bilmes, M Oliver, S Wertheim, M Chen. Berkeley: Berk. Women Lang. Group.

Bucholtz M. 1999. Why be normal?: Language and identity practices in a community ofnerd girls. Lang. Soc. 28(2):20323

Calif. Style Collect. 1993. Variation and personal/group style. Presented at New Ways of AnalyzingVariation 22, Stanford Univ., Palo Alto

Campbell-Kibler K. 2006. Listener perceptions of sociolinguistic variables: the case of (ING). PhDthesis. Stanford Univ., 282 pp.

Carter PM. 2005. Prosodic variation in SLA: rhythm in an urban North Carolina Hispaniccommunity. Penn. Work. Pap. Ling. 11(2):5971

Cedergren H. 1973. The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. PhD thesis. CornellUniv.

Choi S, Bowerman M. 1991. Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: theinuence of language-specic lexicalization patterns. Cognition 41(13):83121

Conn J. 2005. Of moice and men: the evolution of a male-led sound change. PhD thesis. Univ.Penn, 203 pp.

Coupland N. 1984. Accommodation at work. Int. J. Sociol. Lang. 46:4970Coupland N. 2001. Language, situation and the relational self: theorising dialect style in soci-

olinguistics. In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, ed. P Eckert, JR Rickford, pp. 185200,Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Di Paolo M, Faber A. 1990. Phonation differences and the phonetic content of the tense-laxcontrast in Utah English. Lang. Var. Chang. 2:155204

Docherty GJ. 2006. Developing a sociophonetic perspective on variation and change: some empiricaland theoretical dimensions. Presented at N.Z. Lang. Soc. Conf., Christchurch

Docherty GJ, Foulkes P. 1999. Derby and Newcastle: instrumental phonetics and variationiststudies. In Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles, ed. P Foulkes, GJ Docherty,pp. 4771. London: Arnold


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Docherty GJ, Foulkes P. 2005. Glottal variants of (t) in the Tyneside variety of English:an acoustic proling study. In A Figure of SpeechA Festschrift for John Laver, ed.W Hardcastle, J Mackenzie Beck, pp. 17399. London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Docherty GJ, Foulkes P, Khattab G. 2004. Social-indexicality and speech perception: an experimentalstudy. Presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 33, Univ. Mich.

Drager K. 2006a. From bad to bed: the relationship between perceived age and vowel perceptionin New Zealand English. Te. Reo. 48:5568

Drager K. 2006b. Social categories, grammatical categories, and the likelihood of likemonophthongization. Proc. Aust. Int. Conf. Speech Sci. Tech., 11th, Auckland, pp. 38487.Auckland: Univ. Auck. Press

Drager K, Hay J. 2006. Can you really believe your ears? The effect of stuffed toys on speech perception.Presented at N.Z. Lang. Soc. Conf., Christchurch

Eckert P. 1989. Jocks and Burnouts: Social Identity in the High School. New York: Teach. Coll.Press

Eckert P. 1996. Vowels and nail polish: the emergence of linguistic style in the preadolescentheterosexual marketplace. Gender and Belief Systems: Proc. Berkeley Women Lang. Conf., 4th,Berkeley, pp. 18390, ed. N Warner, J Ahlers, L Bilmes, M Oliver, S Wertheim, M Chen,.Berkeley: Berk. Women Lang. Group.

Eckert P. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: BlackwellEckert P. 2005. Variation, convention and social meaning. Presented at Annu. Meet. Ling. Soc.

Am., San FranciscoFasold R. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Cambridge, MA: Basil BlackwellFoulkes P. 2002. Current trends in British sociophonetics. Work. Pap. 8.3, Dep. Ling., U. Penn.,

pp. 7586Foulkes P, Docherty GJ. 2006. The social life of phonetics and phonology. J. Phon. 34(4):409

38Foulkes P, Docherty GJ, Watt DJ. 1999. Tracking the emergence of sociophonetic variation in

2 to 4 year olds. Proc. Int. Cong. Phon. Sci., 14th, pp. 162528. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressFoulkes P, Docherty GJ, Watt DJ. 2001. The emergence of structured variation. Work. Pap. 7.3,

Dep. Ling., U. Penn., pp. 6784Foulkes P, Docherty GJ, Watt DJ. 2005. Phonological variation in child directed speech.

Language 81:177206Fox Tree JE, Clark HH. 1997. Pronouncing the as thee to signal problems in speaking.

Cognition 62:15167Goldinger S. 1997. Words and voices: perception and production in an episodic lexicon. In

Talker Variability in Speech processing. ed. K Johnson, JW Mullenix, pp. 3366. London:Academic

Gordon E. 1997. Sex, speech, and stereotypes: why women use prestige speech forms morethan men. Lang. Soc. 26(1):4763

Grabe E, Low EL. 2002. Durational variability in speech and the rhythm class hypothesis. Pap.Lab. Phon. 7, Mouton

Guy G. 1981. Syntactic and phonetic variation in Carioca portuguese. PhD thesis. Univ. Penn.Harrington J, Palethorpe S, Watson C. 2000. Does the Queen speak the Queens English?

Elizabeth IIs traditional pronunciation has been inuenced by modern trends. Nature408:92728

Harrington J, Palethorpe S, Watson C. 2005. Deepening or lessening the divide betweendiphthongs? An analysis of the Queens annual Christmas Broadcasts. In A Figure of Speech.Studies in Honour of John Laver, ed. W Hardcastle, J Beck, pp. 22762. London: LawrenceErlbaum

100 Hay Drager

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Hawkins S. 2003. Roles and representations of systematic ne phonetic detail in speech un-derstanding. J. Phon. 31:373405

Hay J, Jannedy S, Mendoza-Denton N. 1999. Oprah and /ay/: lexical frequency, referee designand style. Proc. Int. Cong. Phon. Sci., 14th, San Francisco, pp. 138992

Hay J, Maclagan M. 2006. Are all /r/s alike? Degrees of constriction in New Zealand English intrusive/r/. Presented at N.Z. Lang. Soc. Conf., Christchurch

Hay J, Nolan A, Drager K. 2006a. From fush to feesh: exemplar priming in speech perception.Ling. Rev. 23(3):35179

Hay J, Warren P, Drager K. 2006b. Factors inuencing speech perception in the context of amerger-in-progress. J. Phon. 34(4):45884

Hong YY, Morris MW, Chiu CY, Benet-Martnez V. 2000. Multicultural minds: a dynamicconstructivist approach to culture and cognition. Am. Psychol. 55:70920

Horvath B. 1985. Variation in Australian English: The Sociolects of Sydney. London: CambridgeUniv. Press

Ito R. 1999. Diffusion of urban sound change in rural Michigan: a case of Northern Cities Shift. Ph.Dthesis. Mich. State Univ.

Jannedy S, Mendoza-Denton N. 2005. Structuring information through gesture and intona-tion. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 03, ed. S Ishihara, M Schmitz, ASchwarz, pp. 199244. Potsdam: Univ. Potsdam

Johnson K. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: an exemplar model.In Talker Variability in Speech Processing, ed. K Johnson, JW Mullennix, pp. 14565.San Diego: Academic

Johnson K, Strand EA, DImperio M. 1999. Auditory-visual integration of talker gender invowel perception. J. Phon. 27:35984

Johnson S. 2006. If youre happy and you know it, front your /ae/. Presented at New Ways ofAnalyzing Variation 35, Ohio

Johnstone B. 2007. Linking identity and dialect through stancetaking. Proc. Bien. Rice Univ.Ling. Symp., 10th, ed. R Englebretson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Labov W. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19:273309Labov W. 1966. The Social Stratication of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Cent.

Appl. Ling.Labov W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. PressLabov W, Yaeger M, Steiner R. 1972. A Quantitative Analysis of Sound Change in Progress.

Philadelphia: US Reg. SurveyLawson R. 2005. Sociolinguistic constructions of identity in a Glasgow high school. MA thesis. Univ.

Glasgow. 108 pp.Levinson S. 1996. Language and Space. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 25:35382Local J. 2003. Variable domains and variable relevance: interpreting phonetic exponents. J.

Phon. 31:32139Local J, Kelly J. 1986. Projection and silences: notes on phonetic and conversational struc-

ture. Hum. Stud. 9:185204Local J, Walker G. 2004. Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit, multi-

action turns. J. Pragmat. 36(8):13751403Macaulay RKS. 1977. Language, Social Class and Education: A Glasgow Study. Edinburgh: Univ.

Edinb. PressMaclagan M. 1982. An acoustic study of New Zealand English vowels. N.Z. Speech Ther. J.

37:2026Maclagan M, Hay J. 2007. Getting fed up with our feet: Contrast Maintenance and the New

Zealand English short front vowel shift. Lang. Var. Chang. 19:127


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


McClure JD. 1995. The vowels of Scottish Englishformants and features. In Studies in Generaland English Phonetics: Essays in Honour of Professor J. D. OConnor, ed. JW Lewis, pp. 36778. London: Routledge

Mendoza-Denton N. 1997. Chicana/Mexicana identity and linguistic variation: an ethnographicand sociolinguistic study of gang afliation in an urban high school. PhD thesis. Stanford Univ.152 pp.

Mendoza-Denton N. 2000. Style. Lex. New Millenn.: J. Ling. Anthropol. 9(12):23840Mendoza-Denton N, Hay J, Jannedy S. 2003. Probabilistic sociolinguistics: beyond variable

rules. In Probabilistic Linguistics. ed. R Bod, J Hay, S Jannedy, pp. 97138. Malden, MA:MIT Press

Mendoza-Denton N, Jannedy S. 1998. Implementation of super-low tones in Latina gang girl speech.Presented at Perc. Perf. Gend. Conf. Keil, Germ.

Milroy L. 1987. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 2nd ed.Modaressi Y. 1978. A sociolinguistic analysis of modern Persian. PhD thesis. Univ. Kans.Niedzielski N. 1999. The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic

variables. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 18(1):6285Nisbett RE, Miyamoto Y. 2005. The inuence of culture: holistic versus analytic perception.

Trends Cogn. Sci. 9(10):46773Norenzayan A, Smith EE, Kim BJ, Nisbett RE. 2002. Cultural preferences for formal versus

intuitive reasoning. Cogn. Sci. 26(5):65384Ochs E. 1992. Indexing gender. In Rethinking Context: Language As an Interactive Phenomenon,

ed. A Duranti, M Goodwin, pp. 33558. Cambridge, UK: Camb. Univ. PressPeng K, Knowles E. 2003. Culture, ethnicity and the attribution of physical causality. Pers. Soc.

Psychol. Bull. 29:127284Pierrehumbert J. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition and contrast. Frequency

Effects and Emergent Grammar, ed. J Bybee, PJ Hopper, pp. 13758. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Pierrehumbert J. 2002. Word-specic phonetics. In Laboratory Phonology 7, ed. C Gussenhoven,N Warner, pp. 10139. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter

Podesva R. 2006. Phonetic detail in sociolinguistic variation: its linguistic signicance and role in theconstruction of social meaning. PhD thesis, Stanford Univ. 232 pp.

Rickford J, McNair-Knox F. 1994. Addressee- and topic- inuenced style shift: a quantita-tive sociolinguistic study. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, ed. D Biber, E Finegan,pp. 23576. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Roberts J. 1997. Hitting a moving target: acquisition of sound change in progress by Philadel-phia children. Lang. Var. Chang. 9:24966

Romaine S. 1978. Postvocalic /r/ in Scottish English: sound change in progress? Sociolinguisticpatterns in British English. In Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English, ed. P Trudgill,pp. 14456. London: Edward Arnold

Rose M. 2006. Language, place and identity in later life. PhD thesis, Stanford Univ. 150 pp.Schilling-Estes N. 1998. Investigating self-concious speech: the performance register in

Ocracoke English. Lang. Soc. 27:5383Schilling-Estes N. 2001. Investigating stylistic variation. In The Handbook of Language Variation

and Change, ed. JK Chambers, P Trudgill, N Schilling-Estes, pp. 375401. Malden, MA:Blackwell

Starr R, Greene R. 2006. Beyond cuteness: the role of voice quality in performing stylized feminitiesin Japanese. Presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 35, Ohio

102 Hay Drager

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Strand EA, Johnson K. 1996. Gradient and visual speaker normalization in the perception offricatives. In Natural Language Processing and Speech Technology, ed. D Gibbon, pp. 1426.Berlin: Mouton

Stuart-Smith J. 2004. Empirical evidence for gendered speech production: /s/ in Glaswegian.Conf. Lab. Phon., 9th, Univ. Ill. Urbana

Szakay A. 2006. Rhythm and pitch as markers of ethnicity in New Zealand English. Proc. Aust.Int. Conf. Speech Sci. Tech, 11th, Auckland, pp. 42126. Auckland: Univ. Auck. Press

Tagliamonte S. 2006. Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.Press

Thomas E. 2001. An acoustic analysis of vowel variation in New World English. Am. Dial. Soc.Vol. 85

Thomas E. 2002. Instrumental phonetics. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change,ed. JK Chambers, P Trudgill, N Schilling-Estes, pp. 168200. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Trudgill P. 1974. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. New York: Penguin.204 pp.

Veatch TC. 1991. English vowels: their surface phonology and phonetic implementation in vernaculardialects. PhD thesis. U. Penn.

Wagner SE. 2006. We dont act like men: Girls and (ay0) in Philadelphia. Presented at NewWays of Analyzing Variation 35, Ohio

Warren P. 2005. Patterns of late rising in New Zealandintonational variation or intonationalchange? Lang. Var. Chang. 17(2):20930

Wassink AB. 2001. Theme and variation in Jamaican vowels? Lang. Var. Chang. 13(2):13559Wolfram W. 1969. A Linguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington, DC: Cent.

Appl. Ling.Zhang O. 2005. A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: phonological variation and the construction of a

new professional identity. Lang. Soc. 34:43166


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR323-FM ARI 24 August 2007 20:38

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 36, 2007Contents

Prefatory Chapter

Overview: Sixty Years in AnthropologyFredrik Barth 1

Archaeology

The Archaeology of Religious RitualLars Fogelin 55

atalhyk in the Context of the Middle Eastern NeolithicIan Hodder 105

The Archaeology of Sudan and NubiaDavid N. Edwards 211

A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientic Techniques intoArchaeological InterpretationA. Mark Pollard and Peter Bray 245

Biological Anthropology

Evolutionary MedicineWenda R. Trevathan 139

Genomic Comparisons of Humans and ChimpanzeesAjit Varki and David L. Nelson 191

Geometric MorphometricsDennis E. Slice 261

Genetic Basis of Physical FitnessHugh Montgomery and Latif Safari 391

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

SociophoneticsJennifer Hay and Katie Drager 89

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR323-FM ARI 24 August 2007 20:38

Comparative Studies in Conversation AnalysisJack Sidnell 229

Semiotic AnthropologyElizabeth Mertz 337

Sociocultural Anthropology

Queer Studies in the House of AnthropologyTom Boellstorff 17

Gender and TechnologyFrancesca Bray 37

The Anthropology of Organized Labor in the United StatesE. Paul Durrenberger 73

Embattled Ranchers, Endangered Species, and Urban Sprawl:The Political Ecology of the New American WestThomas E. Sheridan 121

Anthropology and MilitarismHugh Gusterson 155

The Ecologically Noble Savage DebateRaymond Hames 177

The Genetic Reinscription of RaceNadia Abu El-Haj 283

Community Forestry in Theory and Practice: Where Are We Now?Susan Charnley and Melissa R. Poe 301

Legacies of Derrida: AnthropologyRosalind C. Morris 355

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 2836 407

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 2836 410

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be foundat http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

7.36

:89-

103.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arjou

rnals.

annu

alrev

iews.o

rgby

HA

RVA

RD U

NIV

ERSI

TY o

n 03

/14/

09. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

annurev.anthro.34.081804.120633.pdf

Documents