Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:08:07.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploiting random intercepts: Two case studies in sociophonetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2012

Katie Drager  and
Jennifer Hay
Katie Drager
Affiliation:
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Jennifer Hay
Affiliation:
New Zealand Institute of Language Brain and Behaviour, University of Canterbury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An increasing number of sociolinguists are using mixed effects models, models which allow for the inclusion of both fixed and random predicting variables. In most analyses, random effect intercepts are treated as a by-product of the model; they are viewed simply as a way to fit a more accurate model. This paper presents additional uses for random effect intercepts within the context of two case studies. Specifically, this paper demonstrates how random intercepts can be exploited to assist studies of speaker style and identity and to normalize for vocal tract size within certain linguistic environments. We argue that, in addition to adopting mixed effect modeling more generally, sociolinguists should view random intercepts as a potential tool during analysis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 59 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adank, Patti, Roel, Smits, & Roeland, van Hout. (2004). A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(5):3099–3107.Google Scholar
Alwan, Abeer, Shrikanth, Narayanan, & Katherine, Haker. (1997). Toward articulatory-acoustic models for liquid approximants based on MRI and EPG data. Part II. The rhotics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101:1078–1089.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59:390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drager, Katie. (2009). A sociophonetic ethnography of Selwyn Girls’ High. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (1996a). (ay) goes to the city: Exploring the expressive use of variation. In Guy, G. R., Feagin, C., Schiffrin, D., & Baugh, J. (eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (1996b). Vowels and nail polish: The emergence of linguistic style in the preadolescent heterosexual marketplace. Proceedings of the 1996 Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4):453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epsy-Wilson, Carol Y., Boyce, Suzanne E., Jackson, Michel, Narayanan, Shrikanth, & Alwan, Abeer. (1997). Acoustic modeling of American English /r/. Proceedings of Eurospeech 1:393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabricius, Anne H., Watt, Dominic, & Johnson, Daniel Ezra. (2009). A comparison of three speaker-intrinsic vowel formant frequency normalization algorithms for sociophonetics. Language Variation and Change 21:413–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth, Campbell, Lyle, Hay, Jennifer, Maclagan, Margaret, Sudbury, Andrea, & Trudgill, Peter. (2004). New Zealand English: Its origins and evolution. Studies in English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. (2010). Statistical analysis. In Di Paolo, M. & Yaeger-Dror, M. (eds.), Sociophonetics: A student's guide. New York/Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, & Maclagan, Margaret. (2010). Social and phonetic conditioners on the frequency and degree of “intrusive /r/” in New Zealand English. In Preston, D. & Niedzielski, N. (eds.), A reader in Sociophonetics, pp. 41–70. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, & Maclagan, Margaret. (under review). /r/-sandhi in early 20th Century New Zealand English.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, & Nilson, Elissa. (2009). Self-priming in New Zealanders’ speech about Australia. Paper presented at: Linguistic Society of New Zealand 18th Biennial Conference. November 30–December 1, 2009. Palmerston North, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Hirson, Allen, & Sohail, Nabiah. (2007). Variability of rhotics in Punjabi-English bilinguals. Proceedings of ICPhS 16:1501–1504.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel Ezra. (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb Standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1):359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobanov, Boris M. (1971). Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49(2):606–607.Google Scholar
Mendoza-Denton, Norma. (2008). Homegirls: Language and Cultural practice among latina youth gang girls. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. (2007). Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(4):478–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hugo, Quené, & van den Bergh, Huub. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language 59:413–425.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. (1998). Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Qing. (2005). A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: Phonological variation and the construction of a new professional identity. Language in Society 34(3):431–466.Google Scholar