We were asked this same question in the first week of class and I said that i thought that vocabulary was the mot important feature in language comprehension. I still agree with that, although I now have a much better grasp of why that is. Originally, it just seemed intuitive to me that vocabulary differences would be more difficult to overcome than sound and syntax differences. Now after learning about language perception for the past quarter, I know that what I suspected is true. The human brain is an extremely complex and amazing thing. Even with people of completely different, thick accents, I am able to understand their English with only minimal difficulty. The difficulty is much more insurmountable when it comes to vocabulary differences, however. When someone does not share the same vocabulary as you, it is nearly impossible to know what they mean. Even when speaking with non-native speakers of English that have different syntax structure than I am used to, after conversing with the for some amount of time, I am able to understand them very well.
The idea that the most important feature in language comprehension is vocabulary has been backed up on numerous occasions by experiences I've had in my dorm. My friend down the hall is from Bermuda, and his English has many vocabulary differences from mine. On numerous occasions, I've had trouble understanding what he was talking about because I had never been exposed to the vocabulary that he was using.
We were learning last week and the week before about how people's perceptual systems adapt to understand even those people with the most extreme accent differences. This is why I think that vocabulary is the most important feature. Even if it is difficult to understand someone with an accent at first, chances are that it will get easier with time. With vocabulary, however, there is no adjusting. You either know the words or you don't.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Lexical Differences
I've always thought that the different words that people have for the same things are very interesting. They do make it very difficult to have a conversation at times, though. I think that lexical differences have much more of an impact on a conversation than phoenetic differences. When people don't have the same words for things, here is no way that they will be able to understand what the other means. On the other hand, I think that if only the accents that are different, people are able to adjust to the accent and still understand each other for the most part.
Some lexical differences that I've encountered recently are mainly with people that live in different English-speaking countries. I have a friend down the hall from me from Bermuda, and we've already encountered many lexical differeces in our English. Just today, he walked into our room and looked at my roommate's desk and said "Wow, could you have any more stationary?" My roommate and I were so confused because both of us pictured personalized letters and envelopes as stationary, but when he said it, he meant all of her pens and pencils in her drawer.
My dad's side of the family is from Oregon, and there, they say pop instead of soda. I understand the difference now and it's not a big deal, but when I was much younger, I remember being so confused every time my aunt asked me if I wanted some pop. My mom had to explain that by pop, my aunt meant soda, although I'm sure I was still wary of what I supposed was a new kind of drink.
Lexical differences can lead to a lot of confusion in everyday conversation. I think that the differences are really interesting, though, and usually a conversation with my friend from Bermuda ends with him teaching me a new word for something and us laughing about how different our English can seem and how funny it was that neither of us would have thought to use the other's word choice.
Some lexical differences that I've encountered recently are mainly with people that live in different English-speaking countries. I have a friend down the hall from me from Bermuda, and we've already encountered many lexical differeces in our English. Just today, he walked into our room and looked at my roommate's desk and said "Wow, could you have any more stationary?" My roommate and I were so confused because both of us pictured personalized letters and envelopes as stationary, but when he said it, he meant all of her pens and pencils in her drawer.
My dad's side of the family is from Oregon, and there, they say pop instead of soda. I understand the difference now and it's not a big deal, but when I was much younger, I remember being so confused every time my aunt asked me if I wanted some pop. My mom had to explain that by pop, my aunt meant soda, although I'm sure I was still wary of what I supposed was a new kind of drink.
Lexical differences can lead to a lot of confusion in everyday conversation. I think that the differences are really interesting, though, and usually a conversation with my friend from Bermuda ends with him teaching me a new word for something and us laughing about how different our English can seem and how funny it was that neither of us would have thought to use the other's word choice.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Dialect Perception Experiment
I was pleasantly surprised that this journal was very readable and user-friendly. Even a person with no background at all in linguistics would most likely understand almost all of it, with the exception of the IPA symbols. I found that to be important because linguistics research is not something you hear about on a day-to-day basis, so the fact that it was so readable would make it easier for people to become more familiar with that line of research.
I thought that the experiment was very well thought out. I felt like as I was reading, as soon as I thought of an objection to improve the experiment, it was addressed by the authors. For example, just as I was thinking that it would be important to know which other region the mobile people had lived in, those other regions were named.
Something that they did address to an extent but that I think would be important to do if one wanted to improve the experiment would be to narrow down the experiences of the mobile listeners. The age at which they lived in the other region is extremely important. If they lived there as toddlers versus as teenagers, it would have a huge impact on the way they themselves talk as well as perceive others. In addition, it is important to know how long they lived in that other region. Also, I personally feel like having lived in only one other state doesn't really make them completely mobile. I felt like even with two state's worth of experience wouldn't really make them more perceptive to all other dialects.
In addition, the West is much to broad of a category in my opinion. They made it a point that they differentiated between Mid-Atlantic and New England dialects in this experiment, and yet they have this huge, broad category of West. As a native Californian, I know that there are many different dialects in the West. In fact, my project is going to be centered around differences between Northern and Southern California. That's two different dialects within one state, while they try to wrap up that and many more states and call them all one dialectical category, which I really don't think works.
Finally, I'm sure that the speakers in the experiment all had very different voices which may have had an impact on the results. Gender, race, and age surely had an effect on the way the speakers were perceived, and I don't think those differences were taken into account. In my project, I'm going to be making sure the two speakers I use have similar voice pitches, which is something that could have been useful in this experiment. That way, they would know that the any differences the listeners perceived were based on the dialects and not on voice pitch or quality.
I thought that the experiment was very well thought out. I felt like as I was reading, as soon as I thought of an objection to improve the experiment, it was addressed by the authors. For example, just as I was thinking that it would be important to know which other region the mobile people had lived in, those other regions were named.
Something that they did address to an extent but that I think would be important to do if one wanted to improve the experiment would be to narrow down the experiences of the mobile listeners. The age at which they lived in the other region is extremely important. If they lived there as toddlers versus as teenagers, it would have a huge impact on the way they themselves talk as well as perceive others. In addition, it is important to know how long they lived in that other region. Also, I personally feel like having lived in only one other state doesn't really make them completely mobile. I felt like even with two state's worth of experience wouldn't really make them more perceptive to all other dialects.
In addition, the West is much to broad of a category in my opinion. They made it a point that they differentiated between Mid-Atlantic and New England dialects in this experiment, and yet they have this huge, broad category of West. As a native Californian, I know that there are many different dialects in the West. In fact, my project is going to be centered around differences between Northern and Southern California. That's two different dialects within one state, while they try to wrap up that and many more states and call them all one dialectical category, which I really don't think works.
Finally, I'm sure that the speakers in the experiment all had very different voices which may have had an impact on the results. Gender, race, and age surely had an effect on the way the speakers were perceived, and I don't think those differences were taken into account. In my project, I'm going to be making sure the two speakers I use have similar voice pitches, which is something that could have been useful in this experiment. That way, they would know that the any differences the listeners perceived were based on the dialects and not on voice pitch or quality.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)