Language as a determinant of Welsh identity

6

Language as a determinant of Welsh identity

RICHARD Y. BOURHIS

HOWARD GILES University College, Cardiff

HENRI TAJFEL University of Bristol

A bstract

The study was designed, using the ‘matched-guise’ technique, to determine how different groups of Welshmen perceive members of their own national group who use various linguistic codes. Three matched groups o f adult Welsh Ss were used: Bilin- guals, those who were learning Welsh and those who could not speak Welsh and were not learning it either. These Ss were asked to evaluate on 22 scales the personalities of various Welsh speakers they heard reading the same passage of prose on tape. Essentially, the stimulus tape consisted o f two male bilinguals reading the passage once each in Welsh, in English with a Welsh accent and in English with an RP accent. It was found, despite the fact that the groups differed in their language skills and self-perceived Welshness, that Ss as a whole upgraded the bilingual speakers on most traits. Indeed, the RP speakers were evaluated most favourably on onEy one trait - self-confidence. It was suggested that language to a large extent serves as a symbol of Welsh identity, and the results were discussed in relation to how other ethnic groups appear to view their own linguistic codes.

Research has accrued which suggests that another’s language, dialect or accent can be an important cue in forming an impression of that person (Giles and Powesland. in preparation). Such studies, using the ‘matched-guise’ technique (Lambert, 1967) have shown that in many cultures the possession of a prestige language, or ‘standard’ form of the language, confers on its speakers considerable advantages in terms of perceived personality characteristics in relation to nonstandard code-users. The matched-guise technique involves judges listening to apparently different speakers reading the same neutral passage of prose and then being required to evaluate speakers on bipolar adjective rating scales. The speakers are in fact actually one and the same person using realistic guises of particular languages, dialects or ac-

448 Richard Y . Bourhis, Howard Giles and Henri Tajfel

cents. According to Lambert (1967), this procedure ‘appears to reveal judges’ more private reactions to the contrasting group than direct questionnaires do.’

Lambert et al. (1960) asked English Canadians (ECs) and French Canadians (FCs) to evaluate the personalities of a series of speakers who were actually the matched guises of male bilinguals reading in Canadian-style French and English. It was found that the ECs were strongly biased against the FC speakers, down- grading them on seven out of the fourteen traits. However, the FCs downgraded their ingroup representatives on ten of these traits. The authors argued that the ECs viewed their own group as superior to the French group and that the FCs seemed to have accepted the generally inferior position assigned them by the majority cul- ture.2 Other studies in the Canadian context (Preston, 1963; d’Anglejan and Tucker, 1973) have shown that the FCs also downgrade Canadian French in relation to European-style French (EF) speakers. And so it has been found that FCs’ view their own ethnolinguistic group as inferior to both the EC and the EF groups. These results then suggest that FCs are prone to take either of these outgroups as models for changes in their own modes of behaviour including speech and perhaps also values.

Such feelings of self-inferiority and willingness to adopt social and speech norms of a prestigious outgroup is of course not uncharacteristic of ethnic minority groups in general. For instance, Tucker and Lambert (1969) and Hensley and Hatch (1970) found that Blacks in the United States downgraded speakers of Negro English in relation to speakers of standard White American. Nevertheless, Labov (1964, p. 96- 97) has stated that ‘a growing minority of Negroes, Puerto Ricans, and lower class whites reject the value system implied by the dominant speech patterns and adopt a new reference point in which southern Negro speech is central’. Moreover, Kaplan (1969, p. 387) has also felt that a Black minority ‘has sought to make the “nonstandard” dialect . . . the focus of cultural and ethnic identity’. Thus, soon we should expect to find, as Williams (1971) suggests, that ethnic communities’ attitudes towards their own speech patterns will change toward the more favourable end of the evaluative continuum. Indeed, in view of Quebec’s rising aspiration towards political autonomy, similar evaluative trends should soon emerge in this cultural context also.

However, two studies even at the present time do suggest that certain minority groups in the United States do not underevaluate speaking representatives of their

1. This instrument and the area generally sult has been proposed by Tajfel (1959) and has raised many methodological criticisms is discussed in Giles and Powesland (in pre- (Tajfel, 1962; Agheyisi and Fishman, 1970; paration). Lee, 1971; Robinson, 1972) which have been paration). answered by Giles (1971), Giles and Bourhis 2. An alternative interpretation of this re- (1973) and Giles and Powesland (in pre-

Langziage as a determinant of Welsh identity 449

own group. Anisfeld, Bog0 and Lambert (1962) showed that Jewish American students were somewhat ambivalent about accepting the majority stereotype about their group by means of the rating of Jewish and Gentile matched-guises from tape- recordings. More recently, Lambert, Giles and Picard (1973) have shown that French-Americans from the St. John’s Valley, Maine, did not downgrade speakers of their own local French dialect in relation to either FC or EF models. Further- more, nor did they downgrade local French speakers in relation to standard Ameri- can-English speakers. Thus one might ask certain questions concerning what are the conditions, social or otherwise, which allow one ethnic minority to create a favourable self-image while another has a less favourable view of itself? Similarly, is it true that one can meaningfully place ethnic minorities along a continuum of self-evaluation from negative to positive? And if so, what again are the minimal conditions necessary which dispose a given group to move toward a more positive evaluation of its members?

This whole issue can be seen in the context of changes in the nature and quality of a group’s social identity. The positive evaluations ‘. . . would not necessarily arise and express themselves in attitudes and behaviour until and unless there is some awareness, for whatever reasons, that the existing social reality is not the only possible one and that alternatives to it are conceivable and, perhaps, attainable (cf. Tajfel, 1972). . . . If this awareness exists, the problems of social identity con- fronting the members of “inferior” groups can be solved in one of several ways, or a combination of more than one. . . . Examples are. . . to reinterpret the existing “inferior” characteristics of the group so that they do not appear as inferior, but acquire a positively valued distinctiveness from the “superior” group . . . Thus, with the prise de conscience of the illegitimacy of a previously consensual inferiority, a new kind of distinctiveness must be created on the basis of some existing group characteristics to replace the old distinctiveness which is interpreted and accepted at large as implying inferiority. One of the clearest recent examples of the whole pro- cess can be found in the psychological changes that are taking place amongst the American blacks. The very use of the term “blacks” in this text, which would have had very different connotations only a few years ago, already testifies to these changes. The old interpretations of distinctiveness are rejected; the old characteristics are given a new meaning of different, but equal or superior. Examples abound: the beauty of blackness, the African hair-do, the African cultural past and traditions, the reinterpretation of Negro music from “entertainment” to a form of art which has deep roots in a separate cultural tradition, the taking over or recreating at one time, of certain aspects of the ideas about dgritude, etc., etc. At the same time, the oid humiliating attempts to be “a little more” like the other group are rejected: no more straightening of hair for beautiful black girls or using various procedures for


lightening the skin. The accents, dialects, sway of the body, rhythms of dancing, texture of the detail of interpersonal communication - all this is preserved, enhanced and reevaluated. The prise de conscience starts, as is often the case, with a minority. As the new-found distinctiveness does its job of creating a positive and healing new version of social identity, the prediction can be made that all its forms will find an easy and widespread diffusion at large’ (Tajfel, in preparation).

So far we have discussed only North American cultural groups as unfortunately there appears very little European data. The present paper is an attempt to remedy this situation in the context of Welsh identity. In Britain, as in Canada and the United States, listeners do tend to favour one particular linguistic code irrespective (to a large extent) of their own speech patterns; this social standard has been termed Received Pronunciation (RP). Giles (1970) has shown that British regional accents generally possess less prestige than RP and has also shown (1971a) along with Strongman and Woosley (1967) and Cheyne (1970) that speakers of the latter are perceived as more competent than the former. In considering the Welsh regional situation, it is useful to note the following discussion of the Welsh language by Ceinwen Thomas (1971): ‘Welsh is a member of the Celtic branch of the Indo- European family of languages. It is the indigenous language of Wales spoken today by 26 % of the population, according to the 1961 census. This represents a steep drop in the present century from 54.4 % of the population recorded in the 1891 census and more than 90 % earlier in the same century. It is in fact a beleaguered language, and undoubtedly faces a stiff struggle for survival; indeed the struggle is closely underway, and no observer of the contemporary scene can fail to be struck by the vigour and determination with which friends of the language have begun to marshal their resources on its behalf.’

Thus, the majority of Welshmen do not claim a facility in their native language, and Thomas states that ‘without the language you are not Welsh. You may not be English, but you are not truly Welsh’. Therefore, in view of a supposed linkage between language and Welsh identity, it can be suggested that loyalty to the Welsh language would be particularly salient to Welsh people as a determinant of a definite Welsh self-image.

In this cultural context then where only a minority at present speak the language, it could be that contrary to the Quebec situation the Welsh language would really serve as a symbol of national identity. Indeed, a recent cross-national study by Bourhis, Giles and Lambert (1972) suggests that Welshmen do find emphasis of their identity by linguistic means more socially acceptable than do FCs in their context. For although in both cultures a speaker who broadened his accent in the presence of a prestigious outgroup member (EF or RP speaker) was perceived as less intelligent than one who did not shift, only the Welsh subjects (Ss) nonetheless

Language as a determinant of Welsh identity 451

upgraded the former in terms of social attractiveness and integrity. In other words, Welshmen appear to evaluate the expression of ingroup identity through language favourably at least on some salient dimensions; FCs do not appear to be prepared to do this at all yet.

Let us return to the fact that few Welshmen can actually use their native tongue effectively. It could be hypothesized that those who speak the language and those who are actively involved in learning it as a second language may have a positive Welsh image. But what of Welsh non-learners, where do their loyalties lie, do they have a positive Welsh image? The present study was designed, using the matched- guise technique, to determine how different groups of Welshmen perceive members of their own nationality who use various linguistic codes. Speakers in Wales were considered to fall into three broad categories and those were represented in the stimulus material. These were: (1) Welshmen who prefer to use their native tongue, (2) Welshmen who cannot speak their native language but who nevertheless have traces of a Welsh accent in their English speech, and (3) Welshmen who cannot speak their native language and whose English is characterized by an RP-style of speech. Three groups of Welsh Ss evaluated representatives of these styles of speech on tape. They were: Welsh bilinguals. those who were learning the Welsh language and those non-Welsh speakers who were not learning the language.

Pilot study

A pilot study was undertaken to select appropriate dependent measures for the voice evaluation task. Fifty-three adults from a S. Welsh industrial town (22 males and 31 females) varying in age from 21 to 64 years were used as Ss for this pilot phase. They were provided with an open-ended questionnaire and instructed to list as many words and phrases which best described their idea of the typical (1) Englishman, (2) Bilingual Welshman, (3) Welshman who speaks only Englsh but with a Welsh accent, and (4) Welshman who speaks only English and with a Standard English accent. These four concepts were presented in different random orders to the Ss. A word order by word frequency list was tabulated for these four concepts, and the words most frequently used for each concept were retained as those traits most likely to be salient for adult Welshmen judging the voice samples later. A tota! of 18 adjectives were selected for use in the matched-guise study proper from this data.


Listener-sub jects

The Ss for the study proper were 63 Welsh-born adults who had been living in Wales for more than three-quarters of their lives. They comprised three groups of 21 Ss matched for age, sex and socioeconomic status; their age range was 21 to 55 years and they could be said to reflect a lower middle-class sample. The three groups were: (a) Welsh-speaking bilinguals who were selected for their ability to speak and

understand Welsh well; they were all members of a Welsh Choir in Cardiff. (b) Welsh adults attending bi-weekly evening courses in Welsh at Pontypridd; these

Ss were the Welsh Learners. (c) Welsh adults attending evening courses at Pontypridd but in subjects other than

Welsh; these Ss to all intents and purposes could not speak Welsh and were the non-Welsh Learners. These Ss were considered less conscious of their Welsh identity in that they were not attempting to learn their native tongue.

Materials

A 290-word text describing the career of a Welsh choral master was composed in Welsh and then translated into English. Two male bilinguals were tape-recorded reading three versions of this passage: (1) reading in Welsh with a South Welsh dialect (WW), (2) reading in South Welsh-accented English (EW), (3) reading in RP-accented English (EE). The passage took approximately 90 seconds to read, and both speakers attempted to maintain the same speech rate, paralinguistic features and personality throughout their guises. These two speakers were selected from a number of possible candidates for their ability to adopt realistically the three linguistic codes. A Welsh dialec- tologist listened ‘blind’ to these voices presented in a random order and described them in such a manner that validated them for inclusion within the stimulus material. In addition, four other speakers were recorded reading the passages (two of these read the passage in Welsh) in order to provide ‘filler’ voices. Two of these were in fact used as the first two voices on the stimulus tape in order to familiarize Ss with the rating procedure. The other two were juxtaposed within the target six stimuli in order to make recognition of two speakers for the Ss more difficult. In fact no subject recognized that one speaker produced more than one of the stimulus voices. The

3. The authors are grateful to Dr. Ceinwen Thomas, Language Research Unit, Univer-

sity College, Cardiff, for her cooperation in this study.


final edition of the stimulus tape consisted then of ten, 1*/2 minute speech samples. Transcriptions of the passage in English and in Welsh were made available for

each subject.

Sociolinguistic attitudes

A questionnaire of 11, seven-point rating scale items was designed to test the validity of the subject groupings. The instrument included the following items: Ability to speak and understand Welsh and English: amount of Welsh accent in English; use of Welsh at home and at work; willingness to learn Welsh; usefulness for children to learn Welsh: self-perceived Welshness: and satisfaction with the British government’s handling of Welsh demands for self autonomy.

Speech dependent measures

A questionnaire of 22, seven-point rating scale items was provided for each of the ten stimulus voices. Eighteen of these items were selected from the pilot data and included the following adjective traits: Conservative, patriotic, romantic, trustworthy, self-confident, snobbish, friendly, nationalistic, proud, outspoken, exuberant, reserved, intelligent, emotional, understanding, arrogant, sociable and sports-loving. Another four scales considered appropriate to the rating task were added, and they required Ss to rate how much they would like a speaker to be their immediate superior, their work companion, how much they would like to be like a speaker and how much like a speaker they felt. Both questionnaires were presented in English to all groups.

Procedure

The Ss were told in English by a French-Canadian accented experimenter in their respective groups that the study was concerned with eliciting their first impressions about various Welshmen they would hear on tape. They were told that ten Welshmen had been tape-recorded, some of whom were fluent in Welsh whilst others were not. Moreover, those who could speak Welsh chose to read the standard passage in Welsh while those who could not read Welsh of course chose to read it in English. The Ss were first handed transcripts of the Welsh and English passages and told to familiarize themselves with the content. Ss were then informed in detail about the mechanics of the rating task, and the voice evaluation questionnaire was handed out. They were then played the stimulus tape and after each voice were requested to rate the speaker on 22 scales, for example in terms of how conservative they thought him

454 Richard Y . Bourhis, Howard Giles and Heirri Tajfel

to be from definitely to not at all conservative. Ss were requested to rate each speaker over the whole series of traits as quickly as possible. After ratings the ten voices, the Ss were administered the 11 -item sociolinguistic questionnaire. The com- plete test lasted no longer than 45 minutes per group, and Ss appeared eager to cooperate with the experimenter finding the task p!easant and interesting. Ss were encouraged to provide their comments and discuss the study with the experimenter at the close of the procedure.

Results

Sociolinguistic data

One-way analyses of variance were computed for each of the 11 scales providing information about Ss linguistic and political attitudes. All of these scales showed significant effects in a manner that validated the Ss being allocated to their respective groups.

Critical differences were computed between the group means for all of the scales, and Table 1 shows those six items where differences occurred between all of the groups on a given scale. Thus. as Ss’ reported ability in speaking and understanding Welsh declined significantly across the three groups. so also did their ability to speak English, their use of Welsh at work and home, and their dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of Welsh autonomy.

On four other scales however. no significant differences emerged between the Welsh Speakers and the Welsh Learners: these scafes together with their associated mean values appear in Table 2. From this table it can be seen that non-Welsh

Table 1. Scales with mean ratings showing differences between all groups in their sociolinguistic attitudes

- _ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ _ _ _

Groups Attitude scales Welsh Welsh non-Welsh F values

speakers Learners Learners (d.f. = 2.60)

Ability to speak English 6.43 6.10 5.05 37.82** .4bility to understand Welsh 6.33 3.10 2.43 114.83** Ability to speak Welsh 6.29 2.76 2.00 139.06** Use of Welsh at work 4.62 2.71 1.67 42.79** Use of Welsh at home 5.87 2.95 1.81 64.10** Welsh autonomy 5.48 4.67 3.33 23.98**

** p < 0.01


Table 2. Scales with mean ratings showing differences between non-Welsh Learners and the other two groups

Groups Attitude scales Welsh Welsh non-Welsh F values

Speakers Learners Learners (d.f. = 2,60)

Ability to understand English 6.86 6.52 5.38 37.29** Willingness to learn Welsh 6.95 6.67 3.43 133.13** Perceived ‘Welshness’ 6.52 = 6.57 > 4.95 23.70** Usefulness for children to learn Welsh 6.81 6.38 4.33 41.15**

** p < 0.01

Learners understand less English, are less willing to learn Welsh, think it less useful for their children to learn it than either the Welsh Learners or the Welsh Speakers. Moreover, the former perceived themselves as less Welsh than the latter. Finally, it was found that Welsh Learners reported significantly more of a Welsh accent in their English than both the Welsh Speakers and the non-Welsh Learners (F = 7.13, d.f. = 2,60; p < 0.01).

Voice evaluation data

Arithmetic means were taken of the two representative speakers for each of the three linguistic codes so that each S’s rating of the six target voices was collapsed into three values. 3 x 3 analyses of variance were computed for each of the 22 scales.

Group listener effects were found on five scales - patriotic, proud, nationalistic, reserved and self-confident, and the mean ratings appear in Table 3. It can be seen

Table 3. Traits with mean ratings showing group effects in evaluating the voices

Groups

Traits Welsh Welsh non-Welsh F values Speakers Learners Learners (d.f. = 2,60)

Patriotic Proud Nationalistic Reserved Self-confident

4.07 - 5.02 4.92 12.02** 4.36 __ 4.97 5.30 6.99** 3.82 - 4.71 4.68 9.47**

3.20 4.87** 3.17 _ _ ~ 3.90 ~

4.90 5.24 ~ 5.66 8.71**

-

Mean values connected by lines above indicate significant differences between them. ** p < 0.01

456 Richard Y . Bourhis, Howard Ciles and Henri Tajfel

from this table that the Welsh Speakers seemed to be less polarized in their ratings of these scales than the other two groups in their evaluations of the stimulus speakers. Significant voice effects occurred on 20 of the scales. Those not producing any differences were the trait adjectives, intelligent and reserved. However, on 7 scales, differences emerged between all the voices as shown in Table 4 by using a critical mean differences test. It can be seen that the WW speakers were perceived more favourably than the EW speakers, and the latter more favourably than the EE speaker in terms of being less conservative, more patriotic, nationalistic, romantic, emotional, desirable as an immediate superior and as a model to be emulated.

Table 4. Traits with mean ratings showing differences between all the stimulus voices

Traits

Conservative Patriotic Romantic Nationalistic Emotional Desirable as a superior Like to be like speaker

Voices ww EW

3.35 3.87 5.95 4.80 5.36 4.63 5.19 4.5 1 5.39 4.06 4.39 3.90 3.72 2.93

EE F values

5.16 30.40** 3.28 75.58** 3.12 53.54** 2.92 75.33** 3.00 54.95** 2.48 38.56** 1.94 32.62**

(d.f. = 2,120)

** p < 0.01

Another evaluative pattern emerged however as can be seen from Table 5 . On 10 scales, no critical mean differences occurred between the WW and EW speakers, and they were rated as more understanding, sociable, sports-loving, trustworthy, friendly and more desirable as a colleague than the EE speakers. Moreover, Ss considered themselves to be more similar to the WW and EW speakers than to the EE speakers. Nevertheless, the latter were rated more self-confident than either the WW or the EW, but also more arrogant and snobbish.

Less important voice effects were found perhaps on the remaining three scales. For instance, the EW speakers were rated as less proud and outspoken than either the WW or EE speakers (F = 3.53, d.f. = 2,120, p < O . O 5 ; F = 8.04, p (0.01, respectively), while the WW speakers were rated more exuberant than both the other stimulus speakers (F = 9.29, p < 0.01).

Interaction effects between subject group and stimulus speaker occurred on only two scales - desirability of speaker as a superior (F = 4.66, d.f. = 4,120, p ( 0.01) and as a colleague (F = 5.92, p < 0.01) but these defy interpretation within the meaningful patterns observed above.


Table 5 . Traits with mean ratings showing the EE speakers rated significantly different from both WW and EW speakers

Voices Traits WW = EW > EE F values

(d.f. = 2,120)

Understanding Arrogant Sociable Sports-loving Trustworthy Self-confident Snobbish Friendly Similarity to speaker Desirable as colleague

** p < 0.01

5.45 2.74 5.12 4.51 5.26 5.08 2.36 5.36 3.27 4.80

5.11 3.72 2.86 4.60 4.80 3.62 4.34 3.35 4.99 4.03 4.99 5.72 2.58 5.16 5.06 3.52 2.87 1.74 4.46 2.87

40.92** 34.64** 33.73** 13.84** 21.88**

9.51** 73.41** 53.38** 28.60** 45.64**

Discussion

The sociolinguistic attitudes of the three subject groups showed clear differences amongst them. But what is interesting is that Welsh Learners did not feel any less Welsh than those who were fluent in the language. Therefore it could be the case that a Welshman is able to reassert his Welsh identity by making an effort to learn his national tongue. Also interesting is the fact that the Welsh Speakers rated their ability in English superior to the monolingual groups. It could be that bilingualism allows one sufficient confidence in linguistic skills as to overevaluate facility in one’s non-native language. Moreover, the Welsh Learners also rated their ability to speak and understand English as superior to the non-Welsh Learners. Therefore, it could even be that Zeurning a second language affords one confidence in one’s native language. In summary then, the groups vaned in their Welsh language skills, their desire to learn the language, the use they thought it had for their children and their self-perceptions of Welshness. It would seem then that to possess a full Welsh identity one needs at least to be involved in learning the language.

On the basis of these differences, it is quite surprising to find no evaluative diver- gence between them in their rating of the various Welsh speakers. Whether Ss could speak Welsh or not, or how Welsh they considered they felt, did not seem to matter in the sense that all groups upgraded the WW speakers on most traits. But of particular interest is the fact that the Welsh accent can also serve as a marker of ethnic identity. For on many scales such as trustworthiness, friendliness and so forth, the


mere possession of a Welsh accent was as effective in eliciting a favourable reaction from Ss speaking the Welsh language itself. Nevertheless, as Table 4 shows, true Welsh identity can only be reflected through fluency in the language owing to the fact that bilingual stimulus speakers were rated the most nationalistic and patriotic. Moreover, all Ss whether they wanted to learn Welsh to a greater or lesser extent still preferred to attain a WW image than model themselves after the supposedly high prestige RP speaker. Indeed, the latter was only favourably evaluated on self- confidence in relation to the other stimulus speakers. When he was highly evaluated then it was on somewhat negative traits - conservatism, snobbishness and arrogance. Furthermore, not even was perceived intelligence attributed more highly to the RP speaker.

Certainly there is evidence from this study to suggest, together with the study of Bourhis etal. (1972), that the Welsh have a favourable self-image - they do not appear to seek the prestigious English RP mode of speaking. Indeed, even those Welshmen who have doubts about the overall vaIue of speaking Welsh nevertheless ascribe to this model. Therefore, these results contrast directly with those found in Quebec where the norm seems to be in terms of adopting the prestigious outgroup’s speech patterns rather than maintaining and having pride in the code of the ingroup. Once again, it would seem important in relating the present findings with those of Lambert el aE. (1973) in Maine, to determine the factors at work which make for a positive self-evaluation for some cultural groups, but a perpetuation of a negative self-image in other ethnic communities like French Canada, and to a lesser extent Black America

The present results are also interesting in view of certain other findings by Labov et al. (1968) and Giles (1971a, 1973) which suggest that in certain social situations and contexts, adoption of the prestigious form of the language could be socially disadvantageous.

REFERENCES

Agheyisi, R., and Fishman, J. A. (1970) Lan- guage attitude studies: A brief survey of methodological approaches. Anrhro- pol. Ling., 12, 137-57.

d’hglejan, A., and Tucker, G. R. (1973) Sociolinguistic correlates of speech style in Quebec. In R. Shuy (Ed.), Social and ethnic diversity. Washington, Georgetown University Press.

Anisfeld, M., Bogo, N., and Lambert, W. E.

(1962) Evaluational reactions to accented speech, 1. abn. SOC. Psychol., 65,

Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H., and Lambert, W. E. (1972) Group membership and dialect shift: Some cross-national data. Paper delivered to the Annual Soc. Psychol. Section Conference of the Brit. Psychol. Soc., Brighton, Sept.

Cheyne, W. (1970) Stereotyped reactions to

223-31.


speakers with Scottish Qional accents. Brit. 5 chol., 9, 77-79.

and English re- . SOC. clin. Psy-

Giles, H. (1970) Evalcative reactions to accents. Educ. Rev., 22, 211-27.

- (1971) A study of speech patterns in social interaction: Accent evaluation and accent change. Unpub. Ph. D. The- sis. University of Bristol. 1197La) Patterns of evaluation in reactions to RP, South Welsh and Somer- set accented speech. Brit. J . soc. elin.

- (in press) Communicative effectiveness as a function of accented speech. Speech Mono.

- and Bourhis, R. Y. (1973) Dialect perception revisited. Submitted for publi- cation. and Powesland, P. F. (in preparation) Social evulurition through speech char- :Irteristrcs. European SOC. Psychol. Mo- nogr. Series. Academic Press.

Hensley, h., and Hatch, E. (1970) Black high school students’ reactions to Black speakers of Standard and Black Eng- lish. Mimeograph, UCLA.

Kaplan, R. (1969) On a note of protest (in a minor key): Bidialectism vs. Bidia- lectism. Co/!ege English, 30, 386-89.

Labov. W. (1964) Stages in the acqui- sition of Standard English. In R. Shuy (Ed.), Social dialects and language learning. Champaign, Ill., NCTE, 77- 103.

- Cohen, P., Robins, C., and Lewis, J. (1968) A study of the nonstandard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. Final Re- port. Cooperative Research Project No. 3388, Vols. I & 11. Washington D.C., Office of Education.

Lambert, W. E. (1967)The social psychology of bilingualism. J . soc. Issues, 23, 91- 109.

- Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., and

--

Psycho!.. 10, 280-81.

-

Fillenbaum, S. (1960) Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. 3. abn.

- Giles, H., and Picard, 0. (1973) Lan- guage attitudes in a French American community. Mimeogroph, McGill Uni- versity.

Lee, R. R. (1971) Dialect perception: A critical review and re-evaluation. Q. J . Speech, 57,410-17.

Preston, M. S. (1963) Evaluational reactions to English, Canadian French and Euro- pean French voices. Unpub. M. A. Thesis, McGill University.

Strongman, K. T., and Woosley, J . (1967) Stereotyped reactions to regional accents. Brit. J . SOC. clin. Psychol., 7 ,

Tajfel, H. (1959) A note on Lambert’s ‘Evaluational reactions to spoken languages’. Canad. J . Psychol., 13, 86-92. (1962) Social perception. In G. Humph- rey and M. Argyle (Eds.), Social p q - chology through experiment. Methuen, London. Pp. 20-54.

- (1972) La catCgorisation sociale. In S . Moscovici (ed.), Introduction d la psy- chologie sociale. Vol. I. Paris, Larousse.

- (in preparation) Towards a social- cog- nitive theory of intergroup behaviour.

Thomas, C. (1971) On the Welsh Language. Paper delivered to the Ann. Summer School of the Intern. Folk Group, Harlech. Mimeograph, University Col- lege, Cardiff.

Tucker, G. R., and Lambert, W. E. (1969) White and Negro listeners’ reactions to various American-English dialects. Soc. Forces, 47, 463-68.

Williams, F. (1971) Language, attitude and social change. In F. Williams (Ed.), Lanpiage and poverty: Perspectives on :T theme. Inst. for Res. on Poverty Monogr. Series, Chicago, Markham Press. Pp. 80-99.

SOC. Psychol., 60, 44-51

164-67.

-

460 Richard Y . Bourhis, Howard Giles and Henri Tajfei

RbumC

Cette etude a t t C faite au moyen de la technique des apparences comparbes, afin de dtterminer comment differents groupes de Gallois peqoivent des membres de leur propre groupe national en usant de plu- sieurs codes linguistiques. Trois groupes de Gallois adultes comparables furent utilisb: les bilingues, ceux qui apprennent le gallois et ceux qui ne le parlent ni I’apprennent. Ces trois groupes ont dil tvaluer sur 22 Cchelles les personnalitts de diverses voix galloises lisant un mBme passage de prose s u r bande magnttique. La bande stimulus se composait de deux mlles bilingues lisant le texte en gallois, en anglais avec un accent de cette region, et en anglais avec une prononciation correcte. On decouvrit que, malgre les diffkrences de maitrise du gallois et celles de la perception de l e u ap- partenance ethnique, les sujets en tant que groupe, ont prkftre les voix ‘bilingues’ sur presque tous les plans. Qui plus est, la seule mesure oh la voix ‘anglaise’ correcte obtint des rtsultats de jugement supkrieurs awi deux autres est celle de la confiance en soi. I1 est suggtrt que la langue sert pour une grande part de symbole de I’identitC gal- loise, et les rtsultats sont comparts avec la faGon dont d‘autres groupes ethniques per- Foivent leurs particularitts linguistiques.

Zusam men f assung

In dieser Studie sollte mit Hilfe der ‘matched- guise’-Technik festgestellt werden, in wel- cher Weise verschiedene Gruppen von Wa- kern Mitglieder ihrer eigenen nationalen Gruppe wahmehmen, die sich unterschied- licher linguistischer Codes bedienen. Drei gleichartige (matched) Gruppen erwachse- ner Walker wurden verwendet: Bilinguale, Personen, die z.Zt. Walisisch lernten und solche, die nicht Walisisch konnten und es auch nicht z.Zt. lernten. Diese Vpn wurden gebeten, auf 22 Skalen die Personlichkeiten verschiedener walisischer Sprecher zu be- urteilen, die sie vom Tonband jeweils den- selben Text lesen horten. Das Stimulus- Band enthielt im wesentlichen Aufnahmen von zwei miinnlichen Bilingualen, die den Text je einmal in Walisisch, in Englisch mit walisischem Akzent und in Englisch mit RP-Akzent (RP = bevorzugte Standard- aussprache) lasen. Obgleich sich die Vpn in ihren sprachlichen F~igkei ten und in dem AusmaB unterschieden, in dem sie sich selbst als Walker betrachteten, stellte sich heraus, daJ3 die Vpn insgesamt die bilingualen (d.h. die Walisisch lesenden) Sprecher in den meisten Persiinlichkeitszugen aufwer- teten. Die RP-Sprecher wurden tatsachlich nur in einer Eigenschaft am giinstigsten beurteilt: Selbstvertrauen. Die Annahme bietet sich an, daB die Sprache in erheb- lichem AusmaB als Symbol der walisischen Identitlit dient, und die Ergebnisse werden unter dem Gesichtspunkt diskutiert, wie an- dere ethnische Gruppen im Vergleich ihre eigenen Ihguistischen Codes zu when scheinen.

Documents

Language as a determinant of Welsh identity