Searching for the “native” speaker: A preregistered conceptual replication and extension of Reid, Trofimovich, and O’Brien (2019)

IF 2.4 2区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Bianca Brown, Botagoz Tusmagambet, Valentino Rahming, Chun-Ying Tu, Michael B. DeSalvo, Seth Wiener
{"title":"Searching for the “native” speaker: A preregistered conceptual replication and extension of Reid, Trofimovich, and O’Brien (2019)","authors":"Bianca Brown, Botagoz Tusmagambet, Valentino Rahming, Chun-Ying Tu, Michael B. DeSalvo, Seth Wiener","doi":"10.1017/S0142716423000127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study conceptually replicated and extended Reid, Trofimovich, and O’Brien (2019), who found that native English speakers could be biased positively (or negatively) relative to a control condition in terms of how they rate non-native English speech. Our internet-based study failed to replicate Reid et al. across a wider population sample of “native” speakers (n = 189). Listeners did not change how they rated non-native English speech after social bias orientations and performed similarly across all five measures of speech and across age and race (Asian, Black, and Caucasian). We attribute our results to differences in the methods (in-person vs. online) and/or participants. Of note, roughly one-third of our “native” participants indicated proficiency in languages other than English and residency in 12 different English-speaking countries, despite identifying as a) fluent English speakers who b) used English primarily and c) acquired English before any other language from birth. These screening items taken together qualified “native” participants in line with traditional psycholinguistics research. We conclude that the concept of “nativeness” is tied to culture-specific perspectives surrounding language use. As such, the native/non-native categorical variable simultaneously serves and limits the advancement of psycholinguistics research.","PeriodicalId":48065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Psycholinguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Psycholinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716423000127","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract This study conceptually replicated and extended Reid, Trofimovich, and O’Brien (2019), who found that native English speakers could be biased positively (or negatively) relative to a control condition in terms of how they rate non-native English speech. Our internet-based study failed to replicate Reid et al. across a wider population sample of “native” speakers (n = 189). Listeners did not change how they rated non-native English speech after social bias orientations and performed similarly across all five measures of speech and across age and race (Asian, Black, and Caucasian). We attribute our results to differences in the methods (in-person vs. online) and/or participants. Of note, roughly one-third of our “native” participants indicated proficiency in languages other than English and residency in 12 different English-speaking countries, despite identifying as a) fluent English speakers who b) used English primarily and c) acquired English before any other language from birth. These screening items taken together qualified “native” participants in line with traditional psycholinguistics research. We conclude that the concept of “nativeness” is tied to culture-specific perspectives surrounding language use. As such, the native/non-native categorical variable simultaneously serves and limits the advancement of psycholinguistics research.
寻找“母语”说话者:Reid, Trofimovich和O 'Brien(2019)的预注册概念复制和扩展
摘要这项研究在概念上复制和扩展了Reid、Trofimovich和O'Brien(2019),他们发现,母语为英语的人在如何评价非母语英语言语方面,相对于对照条件,可能会有积极(或消极)的偏见。我们基于互联网的研究未能在更广泛的“母语”人群样本中复制Reid等人(n=189)。听众并没有改变他们在社会偏见取向后对非母语英语言语的评价方式,在所有五种言语指标以及不同年龄和种族(亚洲人、黑人和高加索人)中的表现都相似。我们将我们的结果归因于方法(面对面与在线)和/或参与者的差异。值得注意的是,大约三分之一的“母语”参与者表示精通英语以外的语言,并居住在12个不同的英语国家,尽管他们认为a)英语流利,b)主要使用英语,c)从出生起就在任何其他语言之前学习英语。根据传统的心理语言学研究,这些筛选项目汇集了合格的“本土”参与者。我们得出的结论是,“本土性”的概念与围绕语言使用的特定文化视角有关。因此,母语/非母语分类变量同时服务于并限制了心理语言学研究的进展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Applied Psycholinguistics publishes original research papers on the psychological processes involved in language. It examines language development , language use and language disorders in adults and children with a particular emphasis on cross-language studies. The journal gathers together the best work from a variety of disciplines including linguistics, psychology, reading, education, language learning, speech and hearing, and neurology. In addition to research reports, theoretical reviews will be considered for publication as will keynote articles and commentaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信