↓ Skip to main content

Can mergers-in-progress be unmerged in speech accommodation?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can mergers-in-progress be unmerged in speech accommodation?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00653
Pubmed ID
Authors

Molly Babel, Michael McAuliffe, Graham Haber

Abstract

This study examines spontaneous phonetic accommodation of a dialect with distinct categories by speakers who are in the process of merging those categories. We focus on the merger of the NEAR and SQUARE lexical sets in New Zealand English, presenting New Zealand participants with an unmerged speaker of Australian English. Mergers-in-progress are a uniquely interesting sound change as they showcase the asymmetry between speech perception and production. Yet, we examine mergers using spontaneous phonetic imitation, which is phenomenon that is necessarily a behavior where perceptual input influences speech production. Phonetic imitation is quantified by a perceptual measure and an acoustic calculation of mergedness using a Pillai-Bartlett trace. The results from both analyses indicate spontaneous phonetic imitation is moderated by extra-linguistic factors such as the valence of assigned conditions and social bias. We also find evidence for a decrease in the degree of mergedness in post-exposure productions. Taken together, our results suggest that under the appropriate conditions New Zealanders phonetically accommodate to Australian English and that in the process of speech imitation, mergers-in-progress can, but do not consistently, become less merged.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 6%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 49 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 32%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 28 53%
Psychology 5 9%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2017.
All research outputs
#12,883,635
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,912
of 29,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,713
of 280,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#518
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.