- Email: [email protected]
Speech style and social evaluation
Dixon, l&M.&., 1972. The Dyirbal larkguagaelf North Qucensiand. London: ~~rn~rid~~ Trw. Kw’mina, 5.W.and E.V. Nemlknto, i97 1. Sintaksis ~ri~~s~~~xform v susskix govw~x. Moscow: Nauka.
3. Powesland I Speech style and social evaluation. European nopaphs in Social Psychology, 7. Academic Press, London, 1975. vi, 2 18 pp. $6.60. eviewed by John T. Platt, ept. of Lingui&cs, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Aust;alia. This is an extremely US&~ book, one that should be of considerable interest to sociohnguists, psychoLinguists and, in fact, all those concerned with human cor.~munication through speech. After an introduction which points out that we judge others not only by their menage content but also other features such as appearance, facial expression and gestures and the monger in which they speak, the book concentrates on the rela~~0~s~~~between speech styie and perceived status and personality, the relation between speech style and Lne impact of the speaker’s message, the speaker’s adaptas speech style according to aspects of t e topic, ;.he content ate, and the innucnce of the behaviou and characteristics, he addressee. ?he book concludes with the cxp~~s~tion of 1 - how a speaker accommodates his speech towards that cutor - or does not accommodate or even acts negativity by rna~~ more dise~~~nt~
e writers report on research done by a, and the book has an extensive bibiiicn
of research is not alto-
~SthQrsstate:
“Yet it could be a
~r~stein’s theo-
e oi rest~cted code use, for ~~staslc~,
be on the rugby freed,
a number tif complexities, is a heavily Estener or;,,,nted model concentrating on listener’s perception and response to the speaker’s attempted accommodation. it may be argued that it is easier to obtain a listener’s perception of accommodation than to obtain a clear picture of the actual reasons for accommi~da~o~ or non-accommoda~~o~ from the speaker, but as a theoretical construct We model misses out on some ~~e~st~g aspects of speaker motivation which mzy, of course, vary from one c~~t~r~~~setting to another. Reasons for why speakers wish to accommodate certain speech situations can be elicited but it must be admitted that SUCP:uluest tions are more easily carried out in mult gua$ settings whe:e there is a gl,!ater awareness on the part of the speakers of code and sub-code selection (H&t 1974a and V‘. I sboulilr; like to raise a number of need to be consi rs state that “spee any modification of ihe model. On pa ivid laal & !cPg,ence is a strategy of identification with t ed as a stranal to the social interaction, whereas spee tegy of ~de~ti~c~tion with regard to the lingu ~1;~i~~rms of some reference group external to the immediate situation.” This may luell be true of divergence but it can
no other favourable attitude towards him - in fact even an un-
8s an attempt on t to make it rn~r~ ac do admit that “i to make hirwsdf ions for the ~ter~ocMtor
3. Powesland I Speech style and social evaluation. European nopaphs in Social Psychology, 7. Academic Press, London, 1975. vi, 2 18 pp. $6.60. eviewed by John T. Platt, ept. of Lingui&cs, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Aust;alia. This is an extremely US&~ book, one that should be of considerable interest to sociohnguists, psychoLinguists and, in fact, all those concerned with human cor.~munication through speech. After an introduction which points out that we judge others not only by their menage content but also other features such as appearance, facial expression and gestures and the monger in which they speak, the book concentrates on the rela~~0~s~~~between speech styie and perceived status and personality, the relation between speech style and Lne impact of the speaker’s message, the speaker’s adaptas speech style according to aspects of t e topic, ;.he content ate, and the innucnce of the behaviou and characteristics, he addressee. ?he book concludes with the cxp~~s~tion of 1 - how a speaker accommodates his speech towards that cutor - or does not accommodate or even acts negativity by rna~~ more dise~~~nt~
e writers report on research done by a, and the book has an extensive bibiiicn
of research is not alto-
~SthQrsstate:
“Yet it could be a
~r~stein’s theo-
e oi rest~cted code use, for ~~staslc~,
be on the rugby freed,
a number tif complexities, is a heavily Estener or;,,,nted model concentrating on listener’s perception and response to the speaker’s attempted accommodation. it may be argued that it is easier to obtain a listener’s perception of accommodation than to obtain a clear picture of the actual reasons for accommi~da~o~ or non-accommoda~~o~ from the speaker, but as a theoretical construct We model misses out on some ~~e~st~g aspects of speaker motivation which mzy, of course, vary from one c~~t~r~~~setting to another. Reasons for why speakers wish to accommodate certain speech situations can be elicited but it must be admitted that SUCP:uluest tions are more easily carried out in mult gua$ settings whe:e there is a gl,!ater awareness on the part of the speakers of code and sub-code selection (H&t 1974a and V‘. I sboulilr; like to raise a number of need to be consi rs state that “spee any modification of ihe model. On pa ivid laal & !cPg,ence is a strategy of identification with t ed as a stranal to the social interaction, whereas spee tegy of ~de~ti~c~tion with regard to the lingu ~1;~i~~rms of some reference group external to the immediate situation.” This may luell be true of divergence but it can
no other favourable attitude towards him - in fact even an un-
8s an attempt on t to make it rn~r~ ac do admit that “i to make hirwsdf ions for the ~ter~ocMtor