confidence – Languaged Life

Parent & Child Communication Dynamics in Heritage Language Speakers

Jessica Nepomnyshy, Andrew Gerbs, Christabel Odoi

Language is often considered a window into a culture, but what happens when that window starts to close? In many families, heritage language communication can be a complex and nuanced issue, especially when it comes to older and younger siblings. While the older generation may have grown up speaking the language fluently, their younger siblings may struggle to maintain their proficiency. Data was collected and analyzed, showing the trend that older siblings were more proficient than their younger siblings when communicating with their parents in their heritage language. This correlates with our background research which discusses sibling language proficiency and code-switching within bilingual families. We explore the communicative differences between parents and their children, and how confidence when speaking, code-switching, and understanding of the heritage language all play small roles in the relationship children have with their parents. Our main findings indicated that the younger siblings had less proficiency and that parents were more likely to support heritage language use with their older child, which could create a closer relationship between them.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

A few questions we aimed to understand were: When examining heritage language communication between a parent and their second-generation children, is one sibling more proficient than the other when corresponding with the parent? Are communication dynamics and abilities differing between siblings, and? How is the confidence and language style of one sibling different from the other sibling when in communication with the parent? We hypothesized that if the older sibling is more proficient in the heritage language than the younger sibling, then the parent often will encourage the less proficient sibling to communicate more in the heritage language as one may avoid using the language due to difficulty.

Siblings play an important role in shaping the overall language environment within immigrant families, and their language choices influence the family language policy. Older siblings often act as language experts and help younger siblings develop their language skills (Kheirkhah & Cekaite, 2017). However, younger siblings may find it easier to use English over their heritage language, leading to more code-switching, which is defined as the alternation between two or more languages in the context of a conversation or situation.

Heritage language ties how siblings communicate with their parents as data has shown that bilingual Chinese language speakers strived to maintain their language due to their parents’ wish for them to know Chinese strongly. Language is the factor that facilitates communication between family, siblings, and spouses (Budiyana, 2017). Heritage language is important as it strengthens and reinforces bonds with the heritage community and leads to greater overall connectedness with family and friends who also speak the language (Vallance 2015).

Methods

We explored data from five bilingual families: one parent and two children with varying proficiencies in a heritage language. All participants signed a consent agreement (parents signed for their adolescent children under 18) and completed a survey that functioned both as a pre-selection tool and a way to gather relevant socio-demographic info, where asked age of all participants, all languages spoken, and amount of years the language has been spoken. Names and any identifiable information were removed to maintain participants’ anonymity.

Parents were asked to sit down with each sibling and audio-record a conversation in the heritage language to the best of their abilities, asking for up to ten minutes of audio recording. The parent was asked to maintain the flow of the conversation by asking follow-up questions when their child responded to the question posed to observe a more natural conversation. We tasked each parent and sibling to answer three conversational questions: “Tell me about your favorite part of your day today,” “Let’s discuss a movie TV show that you recently watched that you enjoyed,” and “What is your favorite thing to do on the weekend?” By gathering audio recordings, we were able to notice differences between the pairs of siblings in comparing the number of times each sibling code-switched, their confidence levels, and whether a sibling self-corrected or if a parent was inclined to correct their child when errors were made. Through observing these three key features in heritage language-speaking siblings and their conversations with a parent, we can better understand the role language holds in maintaining a relationship between siblings and parents.

Results and Analysis

From our five sets of participants, one parent and two siblings per set, we transcribed, counted, and observed the frequency of each sibling’s code-switching from their heritage language to English. From this data, we counted the number of code-switches that younger siblings produced and calculated that on average they would switch to English twelve times in ten minutes, which is around 83% of the time. When the same method was used to count and calculate for the older siblings, we concluded that they code-switched on average seven times within their ten-minute conversations, equaling 70% of the time.

Through observing code-switching patterns, we noticed that parents were more likely to correct their older children when they made errors or code-switched from their heritage language to English. When it came to younger siblings, parents were more lenient in allowing their children to continue speaking in English as shown in an example in Figure 1.

Figure 1- Conversation between parent and younger child- parent allows for English language use

The younger sibling in this example is asked by the parent to respond in Russian, and when the sibling responds in English, the parent continues to follow up in the non-heritage language. One can also observe that earlier in the transcript the younger sibling can say that they don’t know how to say something using their heritage language, right before code-switching to English. The younger sibling also seems to avoid giving many details when speaking, as they are less confident in using the heritage language throughout their speech. One can observe this when the sibling uses a filler word before reiterating the same two responses to their parent.

We observed noticeable differences in confidence levels between siblings when conversing with parents in the audio recording. Siblings used filler words like, “um” “but” and “yeah” which indicated how sure one was when answering a question. This analysis revealed that higher usage of filler words showed that a sibling was less confident in using their heritage language when answering questions. We counted the number of filler words used throughout all interviews and showed them in Figure 2.

Figure 2- Amount of times siblings use filler words in speech

This data was collected to validate our results as we compared the number of filler words used to the level of confidence siblings showed in their language use. “Um” was used significantly more than “But” and “Yeah” as it was used as a break when one was thinking of more dialogue. “But” was used significantly more by the older sibling and was observed to occur before or after they code-switched to transition back to the other language. “Yeah” was used less often, but was an indicator used when one was finishing a train of thought. Many siblings had limited vocabulary when speaking, so it was imperative to our study to track the number of filler words.

Discussion and Conclusions

Researching heritage language maintenance within families opens one’s eyes to the efforts parents make to preserve and pass on their language to their children. Many aspects play into siblings’ understanding, communication, and confidence when using a heritage language, and we as researchers were able to uncover differences between how older and younger siblings communicate with their parents. The hypothesis we explored was that older siblings are more proficient in the heritage language as compared to the younger siblings, and because of this, the parents would encourage the less proficient sibling to communicate more in the heritage language as a way to improve their language skills. After observing a variety of communication aspects between siblings and parents, we were able to conclude that our hypothesis was partially true. We found that out of all our sibling pairs, every younger sibling was less proficient in speaking their heritage language, as they code-switched more often and exhibited less confidence through using filler words, in comparison to the older siblings who demonstrated a stronger grasp of the language. As researchers, we hypothesized that the less proficient sibling, within our data being the younger one, would be more likely to get corrected by their parents when making grammatical mistakes, or code-switching, but we were wrong. It was more likely that a parent would correct the older sibling’s heritage language use and allow the younger and less proficient sibling to speak English. We can consider the idea that parents are more likely to correct their older children as a way to preserve and maintain their proficiency, knowing that the younger sibling holds less strength in the language.

If we had more time to further this study, we would most likely broaden the number of subjects we had, provide deeper questions, and use surveys to gauge more attitudes on language use, and the impact it has on parent and child relationships. A few limitations that we did not consider were whether the genders of siblings played a role in their proficiency, if parents being immigrants played a role in proficiency, and whether the age at which the language was learned played a factor in subject experiences. We were able to conclude that older siblings were much more likely to be the stronger speakers when it came to using the heritage language, in comparison to their younger siblings. Unfortunately, we could not fully determine if parents had a closer bond with the more proficient children, but we can assume that they can connect more through bilingual communication.

References

Altman, C., Burstein Feldman, Z., Yitzhaki, D., Armon Lotem, S., & Walters, J. (2013). Family language policies, reported language use and proficiency in Russian – Hebrew bilingual children in Israel. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(3), 216-234. doi:10.1080/01434632.2013.852561

Budiyana, Y. E. (2017). Students’ parents’ attitudes toward Chinese heritage language maintenance. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(3), 195. doi:10.17507/tpls.0703.05

Kheirkhah, M., & Cekaite, A. (2017). Siblings as language socialization agents in bilingual families. International Multilingual Research Journal, 12(4), 255-272. doi:10.1080/19313152.2016.1273738

Nitta, F. (1996). Socialization of “International children”. Kazoku Syakaigaku Kenkyu, 8(8). doi:10.4234/jjoffamilysociology.8.97

SORENSON DUNCAN, T., & PARADIS, J. (2020). Home language environment and children’s second language acquisition: The special status of input from older siblings. Journal of Child Language, 47(5), 982-1005. doi:10.1017/s0305000919000977

Vallance, A. (2015, 12 21). The Importance of Maintaining a Heritage Language while Acquiring the Host Language. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=honorstheses#:~:text=Maintaining%20the%20heritage%20language%20strengthens,who%20also%20speak%20the%20language

[/expander_maker]

Job Settings and Body Language

Ashley Aghavian, Polina Yasmeh, Raquel Barrera, Orit Monesa

Have you ever considered how much your body language impacts how other individuals perceive you in the workplace? Are you mindful that nonverbal cues can make or break your chances of career success? This research proposal aims to explore how nonverbal cues, particularly body language, hand gestures, eye contact, and posture, affect the way an individual is viewed at work. Through the application of both qualitative and quantitative data gathering and analysis, the study will be carried out using a mixed-methods approach. The movie “The Devil Wears Prada” will be utilized as a case study for the research, with an analysis of the character’s body language and nonverbal communication. This investigation will shed light on how nonverbal cues can influence interpersonal relationships at work and how they can either have a favorable or negative effect on perception and job performance. The study will involve distributing a questionnaire to a wide range of professionals from various industries to gauge how they view nonverbal communication in the workplace. The results of this study will advance our knowledge of nonverbal communication’s function in the workplace and how it can affect relationships, job success, and interpersonal interactions. The study’s findings will ultimately help workplace communication training and treatments to boost interpersonal communication and job satisfaction.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

According to Tiedens and Fragale (2003), nonverbal conduct, particularly body language, has a significant impact on how people perceive others at work. Negative body language, such as slouching, avoiding eye contact, and fidgeting, can result in feelings of doubt, unease, and lack of confidence. On the other hand, positive nonverbal conduct, such as standing straight, making eye contact, and using expansive movements, have been associated with views of competence, trustworthiness, and success. Recent studies have demonstrated that body language also affects how well individuals accomplish their jobs, assisting them in recognizing truth from deception, projecting a more distinct and authoritative presence, and building trust (Carney, Cuddy, & Yap, 2010). This study aims to analyze the effects of hand gestures, eye contact, and posture on how an individual is regarded at work in order to understand the connection between body language and workplace perception. According to research, those with authoritative and persuasive body language are perceived as more competent and successful in negotiations, sales, and leadership roles (Reiman, 2007). As a result, the following is the research question for this proposal: How do body language, hand gestures, eye contact, and posture affect how an individual is perceived in the workplace? At Harvard University, Cuddy and her colleagues discovered that assuming a confident stance can increase success rates in stressful situations like job interviews (Capps, et al., 2012). The value of confidence in the workplace is effectively demonstrated by the movie “The Devil Wears Prada.” Andrea Sachs, played by Anne Hathaway, transforms from a timid and hesitant assistant to a forceful and confident professional by using confident body language, such as good posture, direct eye contact, and assertive hand gestures. Even so, it is important to consider how the study’s use of video excerpts from a fictional film as its stimuli presents potential flaws. Although The Devil Wears Prada is a well-known movie that depicts a workplace, it might not be an accurate representation of all workplaces. As a result, not all work environments or people may be affected by the study’s conclusions. At the end of the day, body language is a strong instrument that can significantly affect job performance. People can build relationships with people and accomplish their professional goals by displaying expertise and confidence through their body language. By examining Anne Hathaway’s character in “The Devil Wears Prada” and conducting a questionnaire, this study tries to understand the relationship between body language and professional achievement.

Methods

The study used a video-based approach to examine the effect of confident versus unconfident body language on the perception of professional competence. Two brief video clips from The Devil Wears Prada were used in the study, depicting Anne Hathaway’s character in distinct contexts, one with confident body language and the other with unconfident body language.

Video Clip 1

Figure 1: Anne Hathaway’s character here is shown to be nervous and avoiding eye contact with her boss.

Video: THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA Clip – “Personal Assistant” (2006)

Video Clip 2

Figure 2: The character finds her confidence when she changes her style and is able to answer calls with confidence and communicate with the clients well.

Video: THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA Clip – “Andy Gets A Makeover” (2006)

Upon seeing both videos, participants were asked to answer a set of questions about the character’s conduct and body language. The study’s goal was to discover trends and themes related to workplace confidence, competence, and success. There was no need for participants to be from a certain profession or sector. They should, however, have prior employment experience or exposure to a professional work situation. The people examined ranged in age from 18 to 30 years old. A questionnaire was utilized to collect data from participants in the research. The questionnaire’s questions were designed to elicit specific information, such as differences in the character’s behavior and body language between the two clips, the character’s perceived competence, and the specific activities or body language cues that contributed to the character’s confidence or competent appearance. We recruited individuals for this study who routinely attend a med-spa, are between the ages of 18 and 30, and are currently employed. This age group was chosen because it represents working persons who were picked to guarantee they had some professional experience and have been exposed to office situations. We intended to collect data that is typical of a certain group and draw more focused insights about their experiences and views about the med-spa sector by choosing participants with specified features. Our hypothesis of the outcome of the data we will collect is that the majority of the participants will side with the video of Anne having confident body language as opposed to the other video where she is not. As more people would rather have a confident coworker or friend who is organized, not someone who is unkempt and not put together. Overall, the video-based method enabled the researchers to get insight into the impact of confident vs. unconfident body language on professional competence perceptions, as well as identify particular acts and signals that contribute to these impressions.

Results and Analysis

The study’s findings demonstrated that confident body language had a substantial influence on professional competence perceptions. In a job environment, all 25 participants between the ages of 18 and 30, who had prior job experience or exposure to a professional work setting, voted in favor of the confident Anne Hathaway over the unconfident Anne Hathaway. Participants assessed that confident Anne seemed more engaged, attentive, and aggressive, whereas unconfident Anne appeared hesitant, indecisive, and uncertain in answer to the question, “What differences in the character’s behavior did you perceive between the two clips?” Participants also stated that confident Anne looked to be more organized, well-prepared, and competent than unconfident Anne, who appeared unprepared and unorganized. In answer to the question, “What variations in the character’s body language did you detect between the two clips?” Participants noted significant distinctions between the two clips. Confident Anne, for example, was described as standing tall, keeping eye contact, and speaking clearly and steadily. Unconfident Anne, on the other hand, was described as slouching, avoiding eye contact, and speaking softly and cautiously. Confident Anne had more expansive motions and facial expressions that indicated power and assertiveness, whereas unconfident Anne displayed more withdrawn and tense body language that conveyed fear and uncertainty. In response to the question, “In your opinion, which clip presents the character as more capable, and why?” Participants generally preferred the footage of confident Anne as depicting her as more capable. They stated that confident Anne looked to be more informed, organized, and prepared, whereas unconfident Anne appeared to be unprepared and indecisive. Participants indicated various activities and body language cues that contribute to a more confident and competent look in answer to the question, “What particular activities or body language hints do you feel give the character a more confident or competent appearance?” They included keeping eye contact, maintaining an erect stance, speaking clearly and steadily, employing expansive gestures, and exhibiting assertiveness. In response to the question, “What advice would you provide to the character to help her thrive in the workplace?” participants suggested that the character concentrate on strengthening her confidence, expressing herself more, and keeping excellent eye contact with others.

According to the findings of this study, confident body language is a crucial element in the perception of professional competence. When compared to the unconfident Anne Hathaway, all 25 participants who had prior job experience or exposure to a professional work setting voted in favor of the confident Anne Hathaway as someone they would trust and employ more in a workplace context. There were many variations in behavior and body language between the two videos, with confident Anne seeming more involved, attentive, and forceful than unconfident Anne. Participants also recognized various behaviors and body language signals that contribute to a more confident and competent image, such as keeping eye contact, standing tall, speaking clearly and steadily, making expansive gestures, and exhibiting assertiveness. These findings may be valuable for both people attempting to increase their professional competence and companies looking to hire and assess employees based on their levels of confidence and competence.

Figure 3: Participants’ votes between video 1 (unconfident Anne) and video 2 (confident Anne)

The graph above depicts our results from the data we retrieved from the participants who voted for the first video of Anne not presenting confidence and having ideal body language, as opposed to the second video of Anne exhibiting a confident persona and fixing her posture to show she is fit for the job.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our study sought to better understand how perceptions of professional competence are affected by confident versus unconfident body language. According to our findings, people between the ages of 18 and 30 who have had prior work experience or exposure to a professional work environment choose confident body language in a professional situation. In particular, when asked which Anne Hathaway they would choose to work for them, 100% of participants preferred the self-assured Anne Hathaway over the insecure Anne Hathaway. For those wishing to be successful in the workplace, these findings have practical applications. A person’s capacity to connect with others and establish trust, which are crucial elements of professional success, can be improved by displaying confident body language. Furthermore, our findings suggest that professional ability may be judged by one’s body language, which may have an impact on hiring practices. It is significant to mention that there are some restrictions on our study. The fact that we only used two brief video snippets from The Devil Wears Prada may restrict how broadly we generalize our findings. Furthermore, our sample size was modest and might not accurately reflect the general population. Future studies could overcome these drawbacks by examining the effects of confident body language in various industries and work roles, as well as by using a larger and more diverse sample. Future studies can also look into the mechanisms that underlie how perceptions of professional competence are influenced by confident body language. Our study concludes by highlighting the significance of confident body language in the workplace and by suggesting that people with confident body language may be perceived as more capable and reliable. These findings have practical ramifications for people trying to succeed in the workplace as well as for companies trying to make educated hiring choices and give a glance at what personal changes can be implemented.

References

Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1363–1368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610383437

Capps, Rob. “First Impressions: The Science of Meeting People.” Wired, Conde Nast, 20 Nov. 2012, www.wired.com/2012/11/amy-cuddy-first-impressions/.

Gallo, C. (2007, February 14). Body Language: A Key to Success in the Workplace. Inspired Leadership Now. https://www.inspiredleadershipnow.com/pdf/Article–Body-Language–A-Key-to-Success-in-the-Workplace.pdf

Goman, C. K. (2019, January 24). How to use body language to boost your credibility and your career. AMA. Retrieved February 21, 2023, from https://www.amanet.org/articles/how-to-use-body-language-to-boost-your-credibility-and-your-career/

Rane, D. B., Effective Body Language for Organizational Success (February 11, 2011). The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. IV, No. 4, pp. 17-26, December 2010, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1759718

Reiman, T. (2007). The power of body language: How to succeed in every business and Social Encounter. Recorded Books.

Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558

Van Swol, L.M., Braun, M.T. Communicating Deception: Differences in Language Use, Justifications, and Questions for Lies, Omissions, and Truths. Group Decis Negot 23, 1343–1367 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-013-9373-3

Zhou. (2008). Body language in Business Negotiation. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v3n2p90

Appendix

Ted Talk: Amy Cuddy: Your body language may shape who you are | TED Talk

[/expander_maker]

Turning the Tables: Do Discourse Particles Catalyze Conversational Turn-Taking?

Alex Chen, Dhanya Charan, Madurya Suresh, Yutong Shi

Discourse particles are often used in conversations to facilitate turn-taking. This process may be independent of the epistemic authority, or confidence level, of the speaker. Discourse particles may be used significantly as a turn-taking mechanism, but no more by confident speakers than unconfident speakers. A study was conducted on pairs of UCLA undergraduate students, aged 18 to 22, who had an established friendship of over three months but under three years. Their majors were used to sort them into confident and unconfident roles. After investigation, it was found that discourse markers are not significantly used to signal turn-taking. Furthermore, speakers in both the confident and unconfident roles use discourse particles much to the same extent. This suggests that discourse particles may not play as pivotal a role as formerly accepted in turn-taking and conversation, yet are virtually ubiquitous in speech – although, perhaps they maintain some yet undiscovered function.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

Conversational turn-taking is a fascinating process that allows individuals to actively engage in conversations and share their ideas. In our study, we delve into the intriguing world of discourse particles and their potential role in facilitating turn-taking in English conversations.

Previous research has emphasized the significance of turn-taking, revealing that people spend an average of three hours a day engaged in conversations (Levinson & Torreira, 2015). Discourse particles play a multifaceted role in the English language, serving various functions such as indicating shifts in turns, transitioning between topics, expressing agreement or disagreement, and signaling the closure of a conversation (Zimmerman, 2019). The contexts in which these discourse markers appear show trends, such as “you know” often conveying hesitation; this also suggests the semantic significance of discourse markers (Farahani & Ghane, 2022). However, the specific role of discourse particles in turn-taking, as well as their connection with confidence levels, have not received comprehensive attention in previous studies, which presents an intriguing problem that we seek to address. Understanding the influence of confidence levels on turn-taking is crucial as it directly impacts the dynamics and balance of conversational interactions. Previous research suggests that a speaker’s level of confidence, which reflects their epistemic authority, can shape their linguistic choices and influence how they initiate and conclude conversational sequences (Mondada, 2013). By comparing the initiation of turn-taking between speakers with varying levels of confidence, we can gain valuable insights into the intricate relationship between confidence and conversational dynamics.

Our research problem focuses on investigating the role of discourse particles in conversational turn-taking and exploring the influence of confidence levels on their usage. Specifically, our study aims to compare the initiation of turn-taking between a speaker who is more knowledgeable and confident and a speaker who is less knowledgeable and less confident. We hypothesize that regardless of their confidence level, both speakers will rely heavily on discourse particles to facilitate the smooth transition between turns. In other words, discourse particles serve as significant tools for turn-taking in both confident and less confident roles.

Through our research, we aim to enhance our comprehension of how discourse particles function in facilitating smooth transitions between speakers. By investigating the connection between confidence levels and the utilization of discourse particles during turn-taking, we aspire to uncover the subtle intricacies of conversational interactions and establish a foundation for more effective and engaging conversations.

Methods

The target population is undergraduate UCLA students, aged 18 – 22 (UCLA, 2020). We recruited in pairs and selected two pairs of native English-speaking students of different majors and the same gender, with an established friendship of at least 3 months, but not more than 3 years. We selected topics based on the students’ majors, allowing one student to be more confident about the topic than the other. The students were also asked how confident they felt in the topic before and after each conversation in order for us to confirm this. The participants then engaged in a conversation with differing confidence levels on the subject. Lastly, we provided a post-participation survey to keep track of all metadata. The data collection method was based on transcribed audio recordings of the conversations between participants. The transcripts were analyzed for the frequency of discourse markers used, as well as the number of turn-taking initiations made by each participant. We used a one sample one-tailed and two sample two-tailed t-test to analyze the data. The one-tailed t-test allowed us to determine if there is a statistically significant usage of discourse markers used to initiate turn-taking in either role, and similarly, the two-tailed t-test allowed us to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the two roles’ usages of discourse markers to initiate turn-taking. The variables used in our statistical model are confidence level and number of discourse markers used; the frequency of discourse markers used by each participant was compared between the confident and unconfident roles.

Results

After conducting our participant studies, we selected 4 recordings from each round and transcribed them. Here is an example of part of our transcription for Round 1, Question #4, so you can get an idea of what the transcription process looked like:

Figure 1: Transcription excerpt from Round 1
*Timestamp from audio recordings
**Note that the “…” denotes a turn taken without the use of a discourse marker to begin the turn.

We didn’t take note of the content of each participant’s answers – we only tracked if they began their turn with a discourse particle, and if so, which discourse particle they used.

Our data yielded the following results:

Table: Tracking Number of Discourse Particles between Participants

This bar graph showing the number of discourse particles used by each participant can help us visualize the results a bit better:

Figure 2: Comparing the number of discourse particles used between the less knowledgeable and more knowledgeable participant

Here, we can see that, overwhelmingly, the more knowledgeable participants in each question in each round used more discourse particles. However, the actual numbers of discourse particles used by each participant is the factor that we will be looking at to determine whether the use of discourse particles in relation to confidence/knowledge levels is actually significant. So, looking at just which participant used more discourse particles in a given conversation (the rightmost column) can be misleading.

Analysis

Just looking at the numbers, the answer to our questions is not immediately obvious. For this reason, we will use statistical analysis to arrive at a sound and statistically-backed conclusion.

The reason being, however, is first, we are not sure whether or not discourse particles have a significance in turn-taking, and we are not sure if confidence levels are a factor in discourse particle usage. For example, in one of the conversations, there were 13 discourse particles used to initiate turn-taking among 25 total turns taken. How can we tell if the usage of discourse particles is actually significant? Although 13 is larger than half of 25, we do not know if it is larger than 50% due to chance, or because discourse particles truly are a significant turn-taking method. For this reason, we have elected to use a One Sample Single Tailed t-test. This test will use our sample proportions and sample standard deviation and compare it to the baseline of 50%.

On the other hand, we are also not sure whether or not confidence level affects the usage of discourse particles in turn-taking. For example, in a different conversation, the more confident role used discourse particles to initiate turn-taking 3 times while the less confident role used discourse particles 1 time. We cannot conclude that being confident increases the usage of discourse particles just because 3 > 1 because this could also be due to chance. To arrive at a sound conclusion, we have elected to use a Two-Sample Two-tailed t-test. This will allow us to determine if the proportions of discourse particle usage between the confident and unconfident roles are significantly different, or if it is due to chance.

For the first test, we collected the number of turn takes initiated with discourse particles and compared it to the total number of turn takes. This ended up being 0.365. Then, we computed the standard deviation of the entire sample. With these numbers, we are able to calculate a t-score, which ended up being -3.05. This corresponds to a p-value of 0.99. What this p-value means is that given any random conversation, the probability of that conversation having 36.5% or more of the turn takes be initiated with discourse particles is 99%. Thus, the amount of discourse particles we saw being used is not statistically significant. If the p-value was below 5%, we would be able to confidently state that the ratio we found was not due to chance.

This is the curve that shows our t-score distribution. The p-value corresponds to the red shaded area, which is almost all of the area under the curve.

Figure 3: Results from a one-sample single tailed t-test

For the second test, we collected the ratio of turn takes initiated with discourse particles compared to the total number of turn takes for each the confident and unconfident role. This came out to be 0.25 and 0.15 for the confident and unconfident roles, respectively. Then, we computed the standard deviation of ratios for each of these roles. Using these numbers, we calculated a t-score of 1.70, which corresponds to a p-value of 0.133. What this p-value means is that given any random conversation with a confident and unconfident role, there is a 13.3% chance that there will be a difference larger than the difference we saw in our data. Because the p-value is still somewhat large (larger than 0.05), we still cannot conclude that confidence plays a role in discourse marker usage in turn-taking.

This is the curve that shows our t-score distribution. The p-value corresponds to the white shaded area, which is a small portion of the area under the curve.

Figure 4: Results from a two-sampled two-tailed t-test

Discussion and Conclusion

Based on our results and statistical analysis, we draw two main conclusions:

Discourse particles are insignificant when compared to all other turn-taking methods.
No correlation was found between discourse particles usage and confidence level.

While our sample was random, it was still a very small sample. It could be interesting to explore how our results and analysis may or may not change with a larger random sample size.

An important thing to note is that although we found that discourse particles are not a significant turn-taking method, this is only true when comparing discourse particles to all other turn-taking methods collectively. This conclusion may not necessarily be true when comparing discourse particles to individual other turn-taking methods, such as asking questions.

Beyond the points of interest we explored, we made some observations about our data that could be intriguing to explore further in the future.

Firstly, studying what types of/which discourse particles the participants used could be interesting. We already know from previous research that a participant can use discourse particles, such as “oh” and “you know,” when turn-taking to convey their epistemic state in a conversation. We noticed from our data that, firstly, participants seemed to gravitate to certain discourse particles that were specific to them, no matter the situation. For example, in Round 1, one participant frequently used the discourse particle “uhh” to take their turn, no matter their epistemic state in the conversation. This, along with similar observations about other participants, suggests that choosing which discourse particle to use to engage in turn-taking could be personalized to the individual – or in other words, there are perhaps some discourse particles that people gravitate towards regardless of the situation. But, this is of course only a tentative hypothesis based on our observations.

Furthermore, we noticed that sometimes speakers would “copy” discourse particles from the other interlocutor. For example, one participant would use the discourse particle “yeah,” and the other participant would use “yeah” as well after, especially if the first participant spoke only briefly, and they would keep going back and forth using the same discourse particle. This happened a couple of notable times in our data. It also happened more frequently with discourse particles used for tokens of acknowledgment (which was not what we studied), rather than discourse particles used to begin a turn. Creating an empirical way to test this “copying” phenomenon we observed could be interesting as well.

All in all, based on our data analysis, we concluded that discourse particle usage when turn-taking and confidence level showed no correlation. Still, there’s more to explore within both our research question and the ones that came up through our observations.

When it comes to studying confidence level and methods of turn-taking, what we were really looking for was if there is something unconscious that listeners pick up on that makes a speaker “sound confident,” beyond the actual content of what the speaker is saying. By researching this further through a sociolinguistic framework, we hoped to gain a better understanding of the complex linguistic mechanisms of a regular conversation – mechanisms that we likely don’t take care to notice in our everyday lives!

References

Farahani, M. V., & Ghane Z. (2022). “Unpacking the Function(s) of Discourse Markers in Academic Spoken English: A Corpus-Based Study.” The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 45(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020-022-00005-3.

Konakahara, M. (2015). An analysis overlapping questions in casual ELF conversation: Cooperative or competitive contribution. Journal of Pragmatics, 84, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.014.

Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731.

Mondada, L. (2013). Displaying, Contesting and Negotiating Epistemic Authority in Social Interaction: Descriptions and Questions in Guided Visits. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 597–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501577.

UCLA. (2020). Facts & Figures. https://www.ucla.edu/about/facts-and-figures.

Zimmermann, M. (2019). “15. Discourse Particles.” Semantics – Sentence and Information Structure, 511-544. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110589863-015.

Extra Links

Why do we, like, hesitate when we, um, speak? – Lorenzo García-Amaya (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsMWbVrjucg)

Turn-Taking (https://socialcommunication.truman.edu/hidden-social-dimensions/turn-taking/)

[/expander_maker]

Roses are Red, Violets are Blue. You’re in Love with my Man? Guess my Voice Will Lower Too.

Kelly Eun, Isabelle Filen, Adeline Villarreal, Sylvia Le

Engaging in conversation with the man you like may lead you to feel all sorts of emotions. Maybe your heart starts racing, you find yourself laughing at every little thing he says, or you possibly say things you wouldn’t normally say. These are all very common character changes we may go through during these types of situations, but have you ever wondered if speaking to the man you like could also cause changes to your pitch? Our group conducted a sociolinguistic study in order to determine if a woman’s pitch altered while in conversation with a man of her interest, especially within the competitive environment of a dating show such as The Bachelor. With this objective in mind, the three longest running contestants were selected in order to analyze whether there was a possibility of pitch modulation while in one-on-one conversations with the bachelor. Praat was used to input data to find pitch means, as well as to discover if pitch change actually occurred.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

Some of us may have a preconceived idea in regard to what happens to a woman’s voice when she talks to the man she likes, right? We could ask our friend, parent, or boyfriend to do an impression of a woman flirting with a guy and we would most likely hear something incredibly high-pitched and giddy with lots of giggling and hair twirling. This is a commonly held phenomenon in which a woman’s pitch raises in scenarios where she is interacting with a potential romantic partner (Re et al., 2012).

However, a study done in the UK (Pisanski et al., 2018) found that women on speed dates actually demonstrated a decrease in pitch value when the men they were interested in were in high demand, even highlighting how lower-pitched voices were more favorable than their higher-pitched counterparts. Why did they find a decrease in pitch? This is precisely what our group sought to uncover through our research, as we also asked ourselves…why?

To better understand typical traits associated with pitch, we discovered that higher-pitched voices are commonly indexed with fertility, youth, and femininity (Apicella and Fienberg, 2008)—all the traits men seem to absolutely swoon over, right? However, there might be some other traits men seem to be entranced by as well, such as sexual explicitness, seductiveness, dominance, and authority (Klofstad et al., 2012); such traits are also associated with a lower-pitched voice (Fraccaro et al., 2013).

Thus, we hypothesized that when we look at the average pitch values of our target population in our targeted scenario (which will be uncovered in our methodology discussion), the average pitch values of the contestants will be lower when they feel insecure of their position in the competition and higher when they feel more secure. The question we asked and pursued the answer to was the following: Does a lower pitch truly index the contestants’ desire and motive to assert their dominance through embodying a seductive, authoritative character who deserves not only a spot in the competition, but also the bachelor’s heart?

Methods

For our study, we first selected three women from Season 22 of The Bachelor (labeled as Contestants A, B, and C) who would remain for the longest duration, resulting in the selection of the winner, runner-up, and the “third place” contestant. We specifically chose these women because it allowed us to collect consistent data from the same three contestants throughout the whole season.

To analyze Contestants A, B, and C’s pitch across the entirety of Season 22, we divided the season into three stages: beginning (episodes 1-4), middle (episodes 5-7), and end (episodes 8-11). Pitch refers to the frequency of the sound waves made by a voice’s vibration. For instance, higher frequencies indicate higher pitch.

We then collected two utterances (e.g. brief comments) made by each of the three contestants per stage, for a total of 18 utterances (6 for each woman). To avoid the pitch being influenced by other voices, we only recorded utterances from one-on-one conversations between each of the contestants and the bachelor. The first utterance (Utterance A) was made by recording what the contestant had said before she received assurance from the bachelor, and the second (Utterance B) was made by recording what the contestant had said after. For the sake of this project, we not only considered comments such as “I like you too” or “I love you” as assurance from the bachelor, but we also took into consideration that a kiss could also be perceived as non-verbal assurance.

Afterwards, we separately inputted each utterance recording from each contestant and stage into Praat to determine if there was a change in pitch before and after Contestants A, B, and C received assurance from the bachelor. Praat is a software tool used in linguistic research to examine speech; in this specific study, we used it to analyze pitch. Rather than maximum pitch, the mean pitch values for Utterance A and Utterance B were used in order to account for possible pitch peaks and outliers that could arise and skew the pitch results. This would include a rise in pitch to indicate the end of a question or a potential fall of a declarative statement. So, utilizing the means of pitches provided a bigger picture.

Results and Analysis

Throughout the course of Contestant B’s run on the show, our group found a consistent increase in pitch, as evident by the table below.

Table 1: Comparison of Contestant B’s Pitch Values

Our data for pitch mean is measured in hertz (Hz), the standardized unit of frequency equal to one cycle per second. Sound frequency is determined by how waves oscillate while they travel to our ears and when the oscillation of frequency waves is higher, we hear a higher pitch.

The table shows a positive difference between Utterance B Mean Pitch and Utterance A Mean Pitch in hertz in all three stages of the competition (beginning, middle, and end), indicating that the pitches of Contestant B became higher after assurance from the bachelor. Based on our background research, this likely indicates that Contestant B became more relaxed after assurance during her conversations with the bachelor.

Additional research was conducted to find that Contestant B was the eventual winner of Season 22 of The Bachelor, meaning that she was proposed to by the bachelor in the final episode. Our group predicts that this likely contributed as a factor for the increase in her pitch, as she was one of the frontrunners of the competition.

However, it is also important to note that it is difficult to make definite inferences about how Contestant B was feeling confidence-wise as the competition progressed. For example, it is possible that she could have felt more relaxed, knowing that there were less women competing against her; contrastingly, it is also possible that the stakes became higher for her, and she felt more possessive or competitive with the remaining women.

Another important factor in the data for Contestant B is that specifically in episodes 2 and 7, Contestant B received a rose during a date from the bachelor, which is a rare occurrence as roses are typically offered during elimination “Rose Ceremonies.” The offer of this rose in addition to the lead-up to it could also have had an effect on Contestant B’s confidence, further playing a part in her pitch raise as an indicator of her ease.

When it comes to Contestants A and C, both of these women demonstrated instances where the changes of their pitch decreased (i.e. their pitches before getting a response from the bachelor were higher than their pitches after), as opposed to the increase we were anticipating. Let’s first take a look at Contestant A, whose middle and end pitch means had a decreasing comparison.

Table 2: Comparison of Contestant A’s Pitch Values

Looking at Table 2, we can see how Contestant A’s beginning stage pitch comparison was in alignment with our hypothesis. When she started her one-on-one conversation from that segment of the episode, her Utterance A had the mean pitch of 184.0992024 Hz. After the bachelor chimed in, the mean pitch of her reply was higher than before at 193.5689707 Hz. We found that this could be due to Contestant A feeling reassured by what the bachelor had said, which could have further contributed to her feeling less concerned about her placement in the competition and not as worried about having to modulate her pitch or portray a sensual appeal.

Let’s now take a look at Contestant A’s middle stage pitch comparison, which contrasts the comparison result of her beginning stage. While she had begun the conversation from this segment with a mean pitch of 177.2157487 Hz, this dropped to a mean pitch of 167.5482242 Hz after the bachelor had his turn of speaking to her. With cases like this where the contestant’s pre-assurance mean pitch value is higher than their post-assurance value, it may have been because what the bachelor had said to the contestants contributed to their feelings of uncertainty with both their relationship and place in the competition. By responding to the bachelor with a lower-pitched voice, it would be more likely to project more authority, which could strengthen their relationship with the bachelor and assert their reason to remain on the show.

Moving onto Contestant C, we can see in Table 3 that she also had two of her three pitch mean comparisons being a decrease like Contestant A.

Table 3: Comparison of Contestant C’s Pitch Values

Interestingly enough, whereas Contestant A’s mean pitch comparisons throughout the stages went from an increase to two decreases, Contestant C’s progression was in the reverse order of Contestant A’s and went from two decreases to an eventual increase by the end of the season. This development could possibly be due to Contestant C gradually reaching a place in her relationship with the bachelor that solidified her confidence, while Contestant A may have felt more hesitation with hers. It is important to note that in all of these utterances, although we used our best judgment to decipher the scenarios and contestants’ reactions, there may have been other factors outside of the ones we targeted that contributed to the pitch outcomes of these women.

Discussion and Conclusion

Upon gathering and analyzing our results, our group was able to determine that while our data somewhat aligned with our aforementioned hypothesis, the results may not have been as consistent as we previously imagined. With the conclusion of our research, we then began to account for potential limitations to the big picture we desired to paint as a result of our findings.

For example, we encountered a scenario with Contestant A in the end stage of the competition where her pitch began high. According to the scope of our project, this should indicate that her confidence level was high. However, after receiving an assuring statement from the bachelor, her pitch actually dropped, meaning that she felt less confident by the end of the interaction. An example of this scenario is shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Contestant A’s End-Stage Interaction Documentation with the Bachelor from Episode 11.

To account for this limitation, we attempted to think outside the realm of our project and dig a little deeper as to what factors could have led to this particular utterance not aligning with our hypothesis, and we may have gotten our answer from looking into something almost all of us have probably done at least once in our lives: lied.

Let’s say your boyfriend made you upset and finally mustered up the courage to ask the dreaded question: “Are you okay?” You look him dead in the eyes, clearly not okay, and say something along the lines of “I’m fine” or “I’m just tired.” Now, are you really fine or just tired? Absolutely not, but for reasons unbeknownst to everyone but the universe itself, you evaded the truth. Similarly, this could have been what we saw in our data as well.

Therefore, even though we used our best judgment to select a scenario in which the contestant received verbal assurance, when we consider the limited scope of our sociolinguistic research, we may not have been able to account for the internal psychological factors that pertain to a woman’s verbal expression of having accepted that assurance. Thus, as we saw in Contestant A’s final utterance, we presumed that her response of “I’m as ready as I’ll ever be” indicated to the listener that she has been assured and is feeling ‘ready’ to meet the bachelor’s family for the first time. Ideally, this should have been accompanied by a higher pitch to index her confidence and security in the competition. However, we can now presume that Contestant A’s statement did not actually reflect what she was feeling inside and she may have felt as though she was nowhere near ‘ready’ to meet the bachelor’s parents, thus explaining why her confidence level and (consequently) the mean pitch were lower by the end of her utterance, which actually does align with our hypothesis! If we had not calculated the mean pitch of this utterance or discovered an unexpected decrease that misaligned with our hypothesis, we would have not been able to think beyond the realm of our research and propose an internal factor that may have impacted what we found in our results. So, what our group initially identified as a suspected failure may not have been a failure at all.

Furthermore, our group looked beyond the bindings of our research and constructed further possible iterations of our project that could be used to bridge the gaps in both previous research and our project on pitch modulation and its indexicality. These iterations could dive into many possible examinations of pitch modulation such as mental/physical well-being, age of the target population, the presence of vowel shifting, and even examining a scenario in which the woman contrarily is not interested in the man she is interacting with. The inclusion of all of these external and, as we know now, internal factors could certainly come together and paint a clear and concise picture of this phenomenon, as it is one that certainly cannot be attributed to just one definitive variable.

References

Apicella, C. L. & Feinberg, D. R. (2008) Voice pitch alters mate-choice-relevant perception in hunter-gatherers. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 276(1659), 1077–1082. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1542

Fraccaro, P. J., O’Connor, J. J. M., Re, D. E., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Feinberg, D. R. (2013) Faking it: Deliberately altered voice pitch and vocal attractiveness. Animal Behaviour 85(1), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.016

Klofstad, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Peters, S. (2012) Sounds like a winner: Voice pitch influences perception of leadership capacity in both men and women. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 279(1738), 2698–2704. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41549338

Pisanski, K., Oleszkiewicz, A., Plachetka, J., Gmiterek, M., & Reby, D. (2018) Voice pitch modulation in human mate choice. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 285(1893), 20181634-20181634. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1634

Re, D.E., O’Connor, J. J. M., Bennett, P. J., & Feinberg, D. R. (2012) Preferences for very low and very high voice pitch in humans. PloS one, 7(3), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032719

[/expander_maker]