Sounds Shifty: Gender and Age Differences in Perceptual Categorization During a Phonetic Change in Progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the perception of the low front vowel /ae/ which has been found to be more centralized by younger speakers of some varieties of Canadian English (Labov, Ash & Boberg 2006, De Decker 2006). The results of an experiment are presented here revealing that centralized variants of /ae/ are categorized and evaluated differently by members of the same speech community. This suggests that vocalic drift is not merely a mechanical operation but a process mediated by variation in perceptual analysis. In the experiment, subjects listened to different pronunciations of the word sack. The second formant of the vowel was manipulated using Praat (Boersma & Weenink 2009) to produce a 19-step continuum of forms ranging between canonical sack and sock . 39 Subjects were asked to categorize each variant as sounding like “sack”, “sock" or "either sack or sock". Results reveal differences in categorization of vowel stimuli along the lines of gender and age. Male respondents were found to assign more of the continuum the label sock while female respondents heard a higher percentage of the continuum as sack. That is, when presented with the exact same continuum of forms, males exhibit a narrower range for the vowel /ae/ whereas females showed an extended tolerance for /æ/ further along the continuum. A similar result is found for age: younger speakers exhibited more centralized perceptual boundaries than older speakers. It is argued that these results are consistent with a view that considers phonetic changes like /ae/-retraction are facilitated via perceptual re-analysis. This model of sound change is contrasted with others like Ohala's (1981, 1993) misperception theory which states that sound changes result from the under- or over-application of phonetic reconstruction rules.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".