Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-fx4k7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T11:36:39.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socially-mediated syntactic alignment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2014

Kodi Weatherholtz ,
Kathryn Campbell-Kibler  and
T. Florian Jaeger
Kodi Weatherholtz
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Kathryn Campbell-Kibler
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
T. Florian Jaeger
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When we interact with one another, we tend to align our behaviors, including the way we talk. Psycholinguistic work has conceptualized alignment as the result of automatic cognitive mechanisms that operate to facilitate processing and communication. Sociolinguistic work has focused on the role of social identity and interactional strategy in explaining linguistic alignment. We draw on these two largely distinct traditions to investigate socially mediated syntactic alignment with the goal of understanding how social perception and cognition influence the mechanisms involved in alignment. A novel web-based paradigm was employed to collect speech data from a large socially heterogeneous sample. Participants listened to one of three speakers, each with a different accent, deliver an ideologically charged diatribe. Participants then completed a picture description task to assess the degree of syntactic alignment. Finally, participants completed a comprehensive social questionnaire designed to assess a wide range of social dimensions, which were tested as predictors of alignment. Our results suggest that syntactic alignment is to some extent automatic, but socially mediated. We found an overall alignment effect across social conditions and independent of social perceptions. However, the degree of alignment was influenced by a number of factors, including the perceived standardness of the passage speaker's accent, participants' perceived similarity to the speaker, and participants' preference for compromise as a conflict management style. These findings are discussed in terms of theories of linguistic alignment and speech production.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , October 2014 , pp. 387 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abrego-Collier, Carissa, Grove, Julian, Sonderegger, Morgan, & Yu, Alan C. L. (2011). Effects of speaker evaluation on phonetic convergence. In Proceedings of the International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences XVII. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong, Phonetics Laboratory, Department of Chinese, Translation, and Linguistics. 192–195.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony, & Ginstrom, Ryan. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of complexity and information structure on constituent ordering. Language 76:28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babel, Molly. (2010). Dialect convergence and divergence in New Zealand English. Language in Society 39:437–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcetis, Emily E., & Dale, Rick. (2005). An exploration of social modulation of syntactic priming. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. 184–189.Google Scholar
Ball, Peter, Giles, Howard, Byrne, Jane L., & Berechree, Philip. (1984). Situational constraints on the evaluative significance of speech accommodation: Some Australian data. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46:115–129.Google Scholar
Bandalos, Deborah L., & Boehm-Kaufman, Meggan R. (2008). Four common misconceptions in exploratory factor analysis. In Lance, C. E. & Vandenberg, R. J. (eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity, and fable in the organizational and social sciences. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis. 61–87.Google Scholar
Bargh, John A., & Chartrand, Tanya L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist 54:462–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, Sarah, Hartsuiker, Robert J., & Pickering, Martin J. (2007). Shared syntactic representations in bilinguals: Evidence for the role of word-order repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 33(5):931–949.Google ScholarPubMed
Bishop, George D. (1979). Perceived similarity in interracial attitudes and behaviors: The effects of belief and dialect style. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 9(5):446–465.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18:335–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn, & Griffin, Zenzi M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129:177–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourhis, Richard Y., & Giles, Howard. (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In Giles, H. (ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press. 119–136.Google Scholar
Bourhis, Richard Y., Giles, Howard, Leyens, Jacques-Philippe, & Tajfel, Henri. (1979). Psycholinguistic distinctiveness: Language divergence in Belgium. In Giles, H. & St. Clair, R. N. (eds.), Language and social psychology. Baltimore: University Park Press. 158–185.Google Scholar
Bradlow, Ann R., & Bent, Tessa. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition 106(2):707–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., & Cleland, Alexandra A. (2000). Syntactic coordination in dialogue. Cognition 75:B13–B25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., McLean, Janet F., & Cleland, Alexandra A. (2007). Participant role and syntactic alignment in dialogue. Cognition 104:163–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., Pearson, Jamie, McLean, Janet F., & Brown, Ash. (2011). The role of beliefs in lexical alignment: Evidence from dialogs with humans and computers. Cognition 121(1):41–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennan, Susan E., & Clark, Herbert H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 22(6):1482–1493.Google ScholarPubMed
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana, & Baayen, Harald R. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Bourne, G., Kramer, I., & Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences. 69–94.Google Scholar
Buz, Esteban, Jaeger, T. Florian, & Tanenhaus, Michael K. (2014). Contextual confusability leads to targeted hyperarticulation. In Bello, P., Guarini, M., McShane, M., and Scassellati, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci14). Austin: Cognitive Science Society. 1970–1975.Google Scholar
Chang, Franklin, Dell, Gary, & Bock, J. Kathryn. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113:234–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chartrand, Tanya L., & Bargh, John A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76:893–910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, Constance, & Garrett, Merrill F. (2004). Rapid adaptation to foreign-accented English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116:3647–3658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, Susan W., Jaeger, T. Florian, & Tanenhaus, Michael K. (2009). Producing less preferred structures: More gestures, less fluency. In Taatgen, N. A. & van Rign, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci09). Austin: Cognitive Science Society. 62–67.Google Scholar
De Dreu, Carsten K. W., Evers, Arne, Beersma, Bianca, Kluwer, Esther S., & Nauta, Aukje. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22:645–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93:283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, Grimm, Scott, Arnon, Inbal, Kirby, Susannah, & Bresnan, Joan. (2013). A statistical model of the grammatical choices in child production of dative sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 27(1):25–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijksterhuis, Ap, & Bargh, John A. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. In Zanna, M. (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego: Academic Press. 1–40.Google Scholar
DiStefano, Christine, Zhu, Min, & Mîndrila, Diana. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14(20):1–11.Google Scholar
Djalali, Alex, Clausen, David, Lauer, Sven, Schultz, Karl, & Potts, Christopher. (2011). Modeling expert effects and common ground using Question Under Discussion. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Building Representations of Common Ground with Intelligent Agents. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. 10–15.Google Scholar
Doise, Willem, Sinclair, Anne, & Bourhis, Richard Y. (1976). Evaluation of accent convergence and divergence in cooperative and competitive intergroup situations. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 15:247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duran, Nick D., & Dale, Rick. (2011a). Creating illusory social connectivity in Amazon Mechanical Turk. Presentation at the Workshop on Crowdsourcing Technologies for Language and Cognition Studies, Boulder, Colorado, July 27, 2011.Google Scholar
Duran, Nick D., & Dale, Rick. (2011b). Spatial cognition adapts to social context. In Carson, L., Hölscher, C., & Shipley, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. Boston: Cognitive Science Society. 1111–1116.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor, Bock, J. Kathryn, Wilson, Michael, & Cohen, Neal J. (2008). Memory for syntax despite amnesia. Psychological Science 19:940–946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franklin, Scott B., Gibson, David J., Robertson, Philip A., Pohlmann, John T., & Fralish, James S. (1995). Parallel analysis: A method for determining significant principal components. Journal of Vegetation Science 6:99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, Thurmon, & Rubin, Donald L. (1986). Middle-class Black's perceptions of dialect and style shifting: The case of Southern attorneys. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 7:33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, Simon, & Anderson, Anthony. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition 27:181–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giles, Howard, & Powesland, Peter. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34:365–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrell, Frank E. (2001). Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., & Kolk, Herman H. J. (1998). Syntactic facilitation in agrammatic sentence production. Brain and Language 62:221–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoover, Mary R. (1978). Community attitudes toward Black English. Language in Society 7:65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, Iva, Lane, Liane W., Gollan, Tamar, & Ferreira, Victor. (2013). The (un)automaticity of Structural Alignment. Presented at Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, Aix-en-Provence, France, September 2–4, 2013.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. (2006). Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59:434–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. Florian. (2011). Corpus-based research on language production: Information density and reducible subject relatives. In Bender, E. M. & Arnold, J. E. (eds.), Language from a cognitive perspective: Grammar, usage, and processing. Studies in honor of Tom Wasow. Standford: CSLI Publications. 161–197.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian, & Snider, Neal E. (2013). Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime's prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 127(1):57–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, Daniel E. (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1):359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kaschak, Michael P. (2007). Long-term structural priming affects subsequent patterns of language production. Memory & Cognition 35:925–937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krauss, Robert M., & Pardo, Jennifer S. (2004). Is alignment always the results of automatic priming. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(2):203–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, John K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review 99(1):22–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, John K. (2011). Models of attentional learning. In Pothos, E. M. & Wills, A. J. (eds.), Formal approaches in categorization. New York: Cambridge University Press. 120–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loebell, Helga, & Bock, J. Kathryn. (2003). Structural priming across languages. Linguistics 41:791–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Winter, & Suri, Siddharth. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavioral Research Methods 44:1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattys, Sven L., Davis, Matthew H., Bradlow, Ann R., & Scott, Sophie K. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes 27:953–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Ian, Gruenstein, Alexander, Varenhorst, Christopher, & Sutherland, Andrew. (2012). WAMI (version 2.0). Retrieved from http://wami.csail.mit.edu/docs.php. Accessed February 1, 2012.Google Scholar
Monin, Benolt. (2003). The warm glow heuristic: When liking leads to familiarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(6):1035–1048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, Sheila T., Monahan, Jennifer L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1995). Additivity of nonconscious affect: Combined effects of priming and exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69:589–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nisbett, Richard E., & Wilson, Timothy D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alternation of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35(4):250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin, & Branigan, Holly. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic persistence in written language production. Journal of Memory & Language 39:633–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin, & Garrod, Simon. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27:169–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, Jacquelyn. (2008). Middle-class African Americans: Reactions and attitudes toward African American English. American Speech 83(2):141–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitter, David, Hockenmaier, Julia, & Keller, Frank. (2006). Priming effects in combinatory categorical grammar. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Sydney, Australia. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics. 308–316.Google Scholar
Reitter, David, Keller, Frank, & Moore, Johanna D. (2011). A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science 35:587–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salamoura, Angeliki, & Williams, John N. (2007). Processing verb argument structure across languages: Evidence for shared representations in the bilingual mental lexicon. Applied Psycholinguistics 28:627–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, Joseph P., Nelson, Leif D., & Simonsohn, Uri. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22(11):1359–1366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slevc, L. Robert. (2011). Saying what's on your mind: Working memory effects on sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37(6):1503–1514.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, Bruce L., Brown, Bruce L., Strong, William J., & Rencher, Alvin C. (1975). Effects of speech rate on personality perception. Language and Speech 18(2):145–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snider, Neal E. (2008). An exemplar model of syntactic priming. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2012). Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith. (2014). Persistence in the production of linguistic variation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Thomas, Kenneth W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13:265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Vliert, Evert. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behavior. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. Judith, & Labov, William. (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19:29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahn, Christopher J., & Hopper, Robert. (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 4:113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist 35(2):151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science 10(6):224–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Weatherholtz Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Weatherholtz Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 47.8 KB