In:Recent Advances in the Study of Spanish Sociophonetic Perception
Edited by Whitney Chappell
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 21] 2019
► pp. 315–325
Chapter 11Of intersectionality, replicability, and holistic perspectives
Methodological considerations in Spanish sociophonetic perception studies
Published online: 28 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.21.12mac
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.21.12mac
Sociolinguistics is grounded in the premise that social variables are essential to understanding how language works. While early Spanish sociolinguistic studies focused on speech production, there is a growing body of work in Spanish sociophonetics that recognizes the role of speech perception in variation and social identity. As this field grows, it is useful to reflect upon best practices for moving forward. To that end, this chapter considers the field from a theoretical lens, focusing on intersectional approaches (Crenshaw, 1989; Levon, 2015) as it addresses the practical challenge of replicability (Simons, 2014) and offers recommendations for a holistic approach that will poise Spanish sociophonetic perception data to effectively address questions of language variation and change.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Intersectional approaches
- Reproducibility
- Conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (45)
Andrén, S. (2008).What is this thing called interdisciplinarity?: The answer to the challenge of sustainable development research or just another buzzword?. (Unpublished working paper) Lund University. <[URL]>
Anthias, F., & Yuval-Davis, N. (1983). Contextualizing feminism: Gender, ethnic and class divisions. Feminist Review 15(1), 62–75.
Bauer, G. (2014). Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: Challenges and the potential to advance health equity. Social Science & Medicine 110, 10–17.
Bucholtz, M. (2009). From stance to style: Gender, interaction and indexicality in Mexican immigrant youth slang. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 146–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Campbell-Kibler, K. (2010). The effect of speaker information on attitudes toward (ING). Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29(2), 214–223.
Chavalarias, D., Wallach, J., Li, A., & Ioannidis, J. (2016). Evolution of reporting p values in the biomedical literature, 1990–2015. JAMA 315(11), 1141–1148.
Combahee Women’s Collective (1977). ‘A Black Feminist Statement.’ In Z. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), Capitalist patriarchy and the case for socialist feminism (pp.210–218). New York, NY: Monthly Review.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black Feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1(8), 139–167.
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory 9(1), 67–85.
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Eckert, P., & Labov, W. (2017). Phonetics, phonology and social meaning. Journal of Sociolinguistics 21(4), 467–496.
Foulkes, P., & Docherty, G. (2006). The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34(4), 409–438.
Grant, C., & Zwier, E. (2011). Intersectionality and student outcomes: Sharpening the struggle against racism, sexism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, nationalism, and linguistic, religious, and geographical discrimination in teaching and learning. Multicultural Perspectives 13(4), 181–188.
Green, M., Evans, C., & Subramanian, S. (2017). Can intersectionality theory enrich population health research? Social Science & Medicine 178, 214–216.
Hankivsky, O., Doyal, L., Einstein, G., Kelly, U., Shim, J., Weber, L., & Repta, R. (2017). The odd couple: Using biomedical and intersectional approaches to address health inequities. Global Health Action 10(2), 1326686.
Lambert, W., Hodgson, R., Gardner, R., & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken language. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60(1), 44–51.
Levon, E. (2015). Integrating Intersectionality in Language, Gender, and Sexuality Research. Language and Linguistics Compass 9(7), 295–308.
Lindsay, R. & Ehrenberg, A. (1993). The design of replicated studies. American Statistician 47, 217–228.
Mack, S. (2009). Socially stratified variation and perceived identity in Puerto Rican Spanish (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
(2010a). A sociophonetic analysis of perception of sexual orientation in Puerto Rican Spanish, Laboratory Phonology 1(1), 41–64.
(2010b). Perception and identity: Stereotypes of speech and sexual orientation in Puerto Rican Spanish. In C. Borgonovo, M. Español-Echevarría, & P. Prevoste (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp.136–147). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
(2016). Variation and perception of sexual orientation in Caribbean Spanish. In E. Levon & R. Mendes (Eds.), Language, Sexuality, and Power: Studies in Intersectional Sociolinguistics (pp.130–150). London: Oxford.
Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., Freeman, J., Lombardi, A., Simonsen, B., & Coyne, M. (2016). Replication of special education research. Remedial and Special Education 37(4), 205–212.
Makel, M., & Plucker, J. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher 43(6), 304–316.
Mallinson, C. (2006). The dynamic construction of race, class and gender through linguistic practice among women in a Black Appalachian community (Unpublished PhD dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
Mendoza-Denton, N. (2008). Homegirls: Language and cultural practice among Latina youth gangs. Oxford: Blackwell.
Munson, B. (2011). Lavender lessons learned; or, what sexuality can teach us about phonetic variation. American Speech 86(1), 14–31.
Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., & Fiedler, K. (2014). Research practices that can prevent an inflation of false-positive rates. Personality and Social Psychology Review 18(2), 107–118.
Neuliep, J., & Crandall, R. (1993). Reviewer bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 8, 21–29.
Nosek, B., Spies, J., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia, II: Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives in Psychological Science 7, 615–631.
Pashler, H., & Harris, C. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6), 531–536.
Puar, J. (2007). Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Simonet, M. (2011). Technology in phonetic science: Setting up a basic phonetics laboratory. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 4(2), 557–574.
Simons, D. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9(1), 76–80.
Staunæs, D. (2003). Where have all the subjects gone? Bringing together the concepts of intersectionality and subjectification. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 11(2), 101–110.
Tyson, C. (2014, August). Almost no education research is replicated, new article shows. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Vermeulen, I., Beukeboom, C., Batenburg, A., Avramiea, A., Stoyanov, D., Van de Velde, R., & Oegema, D. (2015). Blinded by the light: How a focus on statistical “significance” may cause p-value misreporting and an excess of p-values just below .05 in communication science. Communication Methods and Measures 9(4), 253–279.