LANGUAGE BASED STIGMA

 CONFLICT BETWEEN ENGLISH SPEAKING GOOD & AVERAGE JOB SEEKER

 ABSTRACT

We explored the effects of language-based stigma on the relationship between Proficient and average English speakers. In two studies, we found that stigmatized average English speakers experienced more negative interpersonal interactions, higher levels of intergroup threat, and reduced performance on an English test compared with an average English speaker who did not experience stigma. These effects were mediated by anxiety and moderated by prevention-related goals. Furthermore, English Speakers perceived stigmatized (vs. not-stigmatized) speakers’ accents as stronger and their commitment to living in the host country as weaker. Our findings suggest that experiencing language-based stigma can (a) incite a stereotype threat response from average English speakers, and (b) damage their relationship with English Speakers on an interpersonal and intergroup level.

 KEYWORDS

Accent perception, stigma, regulatory focus, stereotype threat, and communication, as immigration and mobility across national boundaries increase, so too have interactions between people of different cultures. Most of these take place in English. Thanks in part to globalization and the pervasiveness of American culture; English has become the international language used in a number of spheres, including politics, commerce, defense, academia, the media, technology, and the internet (Phillipson, 2003). As a result, people are learning and communicating in English more than ever before (see Crystal, 2003).

 When native and nonnative English speakers interact, language patterns become a salient means for social categorization. The presence of a nonnative accent can mark the speaker as culturally dissimilar to their audience, or as a member of a potentially threatening out-group. Hence, for average English speaker, language-based categorizations often have negative implications and discrimination is rife (Flowerdew, 2008; Hosoda, Nguyen, & Stone-Romero, 2012; Zhao, Ondrich, & Yinger, 2006). As a result, average English speaker are likely to find themselves at a disadvantage within the many settings where communicating in English is required.

 Despite this evidence of language-based stigma, accent is rarely considered as a socially significant devalued attribute in the stigma literature (Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010b). Furthermore, the existing

Literature on accent perceptions has focused almost exclusively on the perspective of English Speakers. To address the gap, we investigate the experience of language-based stigma from the perspective of average English speaker. First, we establish that accented speech is perceived as a devaluing characteristic with consequences for one’s social relationships. Second, we investigate how

Average English speaker manages this stigma through their own behavior. Finally, we examine whether—like in other forms of stigma—coping strategies can be taxing and therefore impair individual and collective outcomes for the stigmatized.

THE EMERGENCE OF LANGUAGE-BASED STIGMA

Language-based stigma is likely perpetuated by the widespread, yet erroneous belief that accents are controllable. Various developmental, cognitive, and socio psychological factors make it nearly impossible to speak a nonnative language with native-like pronunciation (Fledge, Munro, & MacKay, 1995; Gluszek, Newhouse, & Dovidio, 2011; Moyer, 2004; Purcell & Sutter, 1980). Yet, myths about the changeability of accents prevail (see Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010b; Lippi-Green, 1997; Moyer, 2007), potentially fuelling the notion that accents can be modified. At the same time, native English speakers’ lack of competency in other languages means they often struggle to empathize with the experience of having a nonnative accent (Hansen, Rakia, & Steffens, 2014). The popularity of accent reduction classes (Lippi-Green, 1997) suggests that average english speaker are not only aware of the negative stereotypes associated with their accent but also motivated to invest time and money in the hope of eliminating it.

 Importantly, negative perceptions about an individual speaker may extend to intergroup stereotypes and attitudes (Harwood & Joyce, 2012). When a nonnative accent is first detected, general negative evaluations of the speaker may emerge (Roessel, Schoel, & Stahlberg, 2017). However, presumptions about the speaker’s ethnicity and nationality are also routinely made, presumptions that might further perpetuate negative stereotypes about the national or ethnic group (Frumkin, 2007; Hosoda & Stone-Romero, 2010). For instance, a common categorization of average English speaker is that of an “immigrant” (see Dovidio & Gluszek, 2012) a group that, in most countries is generally disliked by the native population (Kessler & Freeman, 2005). Hence, between the biases associated with nonnative accents generally (Roessel et al., 2017) and the group membership that these accents often signify, when speaking with a nonnative accent there is a strong chance of being negatively categorized (i.e., stigmatized) by perceivers.. These perceptions are overlaid, and reinforced, by status differences between native and nonnative accented speakers. When interaction takes place in the ENGLISH SPEAKER’s home country, their higher status position relative to nonnative speaking immigrants (Geschke, Mummendey, Kessler, & Funke, 2010) means that the latter may try, and be expected to, imitate the accent of the former (Giles, 2016; Giles, Mulac, Bradac, & Johnson, 1987; see also Gregory & Webster, 1996; Hamers & Blanc, 1989).

When average English speaker, perhaps inevitably, fail at this endeavor, negative feelings, like suspicion or intergroup threat, may ensue (Lev-Ari & Keysar, 2010). This further embeds the stigmatization of nonnative accents.

 CONSEQUENCES OF LANGUAGE-BASED STIGMA

To the extent that average English speaker are aware of the stigma of their speech, they may experience stereotype threat . Steele and Aronson (1995) coined the term after demonstrating that African American students performed worse on a test when they were told it was diagnostic of their intellectual abilities (making salient the stereotype that “blacks are not intelligent”) compared with when the test was presented as a basic problem-solving exercise. Since then, over 300 studies have demonstrated that stereotype threat is relevant for a wide variety of negatively stereotyped groups and performance contexts (e.g., Hess & Hinson, 2006; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Stone, 2002).

 Although the processes behind stereotype threat are multiple (Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008), awareness of negative stereotypes is thought to increase the mental and emotional burden on targets in the performance setting. This impedes their ability on the focal task, and potentially discourages engagement in the task-domain in the longer term (see Aronson & McGlone, 2009 for a review). One focal mediator of stereotype threat effects is feelings of anxiety (Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, & Steele, 2001; Osborne, 2007). Anxiety has also been linked to (in) effective communication (Greene & Sparks, 1983), increased speech dis-fluency and tentative language in contexts where group stereotypes are relevant (McConnell & Pfiester, 2015), and impaired cross-group interactions (Pettigrew & Troop, 2008). Moreover, when stigmatized attributes are perceived as being within the person’s control—as is generally the case with nonnative accents—targets may be especially fearful of social rejection and discrimination (Crandall & Moriarty, 2011; Feldman & Crandall, 2007) and therefore prone to anxiety when interacting with the no stigmatized.

 Therefore, awareness of the negative stereotypes associated with one’s accent might trigger processes associated with stereotype threat. When accents become salient in a communicative setting—as they Often do when native and average English Speaker interacts—average English speakers might become anxious about eliciting negative evaluations from their communication partner based on their speech. To manage this threat, average English speaker might attempt to communicate better. However, following the logic of stereotype threat research, and the effort involved in this response, underlying feelings of anxiety might actually interfere with speech, thereby reducing speakers’ ability to communicate effectively and clearly in English.

 Coping With Language-Based Stigma: To cope with stigma, average English speaker may attempt to adjust their accent. According to communication accommodation theory (Giles, 2016), speakers who want to distance themselves from their communication partner are likely to diverge their language by accentuating differences between their speech and the speech of their partner (Ball, Gallois, & Callan, 1989; Gallois, Franklyn-Stokes, Giles, & Coupland, 1988; Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991). Alternatively, speakers who aim to create a shared social identity with their communication partner are likely to converge (or, accommodate) towards their partner’s communicative behaviors (Giles, 1973; see also Echterhoff, Lang, Kramer, & Higgins, 2009). This could take the form of aligning one’s accent with native pronunciation or imitating phrases that are popular in the native language (Beebe & Giles, 1984).

 Accommodated language is associated with positive outcomes for the speaker, including strong social bonds, and effective communication. However, these outcomes depend on the speech being seen as authentic rather than superficial or strategic (Gaiseric & Giles, 2012; Giles, Willemyns, Gallois, & Anderson, 2007; Simmered, Taylor, & Giles, 1976). Because full language accommodation in a nonnative language is near impossible (Moyer, 2004), attempts by average English speaker to successfully imitate native speech patterns are likely to fail. Such failure may ironically result in less positive perceptions from English Speakers Because these encounters are inter group as much as they are interpersonal, any negative perceptions triggered might not refer just to the individual but also to their assumed group.

 The Present Research

We explore two possible consequences of language-based stigma for average English speaker. Drawing on the logic of stereotype threat, we consider how perceived stigma around one’s accent might interfere with the individual’s ability to communicate in English. Drawing on wider insights about

Communication in intergroup settings, we also consider how anticipated stigma might interfere with interpersonal and intergroup connections, and whether language-accommodation is a successful strategy for counteracting these effects. Finally, we explore individual differences that might moderate the negative impacts of language-based stigma 

We propose that language-based stigma will result in more active attempts to accommodate speech patterns towards native norms but less positive relations with English Speakers. Drawing on the Stereotype threat and intergroup contact literature, we also expect that intergroup anxiety will be a key mediator of the negative effect of language-based stigma on reduced abilities to communicate and on interpersonal and intergroup outcomes. In other words, we predict that the negative outcomes brought about by language-based stigma will be a result of the anxiety it elicits during interactions.

 In Study 1, we explore how perceived accent strength and perceived accent stigma are related to barriers for integrating with English Speakers Although accent strength and one’s perception of their accent are linked (stronger accents are generally perceived as less desirable; the effect each of these parameters has on average English speaker may be decidedly different. For instance, although speakers with strong accents are more vulnerable to language-based stigma (Nesdale & Rooney, 1996) and are more likely to experience difficulties communicating with ENGLISH SPEAKERs (Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010a), some speakers regard their accent as a positive trait that uniquely distinguishes them from others (Moyer, 2007). As a result, these speakers may be more confident when communicating, and therefore have more constructive interactions with ENGLISH SPEAKERs (Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010b). Hence, in terms of the effects of language-based stigma, speakers’ subjective attitudes towards their stigmatized accent may be as important as their accent strength.

 We predict that stronger accents and stronger perceptions of language-based stigma will be independently associated with the following:

 Hypothesis 1: A perceived lack of belonging among ENGLISH speakers.

 Hypothesis 2: More communication difficulties during interactions with ENGLISH SPEAKERs.

 Hypothesis 3: A preference to associate with other average English speakers as opposed to ENGLISH SPEAKERs.

Hypothesis 4: More reported attempts to accommodate their language patterns toward native norms.

 Method of Participants and Design An online questionnaire was distributed to 108 nonnative speaking students and staff at a British University. Participants (mean [M]age = 25.97 years, standard deviation [SD] = 7.94) represented 40 countries and had been living in the United Kingdom for an average of 18 months. Participants

Consisted of 31 males and 75 females (2 unspecified) and were offered the chance to enter a prize draw for one of five ￡20 gift vouchers. It requires what one could call hermeneutic humility, that is, the attitude of looking for meaning harder, of an empathetic search for what the other wants to express. It also requires interpreters to momentarily take language as a tool for communication, regardless of its cultural and geopolitical imbrications. On the other hand, competence in the English language for non-native speakers also means to acknowledge the unfinished nature of every piece written. It could be argued that, even for native speakers, a text can be always improved. It is true. Generally, improvement refers in this case to style. It refers to expressing an idea in the clearest, most efficient, and most precise way. It relates to the choices of words, sentence structure, and paragraph structure used by the writer. For non-native speakers, if the piece written is understood at a basic level, if someone can say “I get what you’re saying but … ” whatever comes after the “but” is redundant. If the reader got what she/he said, that is it. It is well written. However, who is this someone I referred to? A first answer could be any English speaker with hermeneutic humility, with a willingness to dig into the meaning. A second answer could be any English speaker who feels confident enough to put that text, with its strengths and weaknesses, into circulation (e.g. who quotes the sentence or paragraph). A third answer could be any English speaker who is willing to give up a stylistic approach to language according to which the threshold for communication would be a grammatically and syntactically perfectly-articulated sentence or paragraph – something of which many journal editors feel proud. This last one, however, means to set the bar too high if we want to encourage international communication.

 Materials and Procedure

The questionnaire stated that researchers were interested in the experience of speaking English with a nonnative accent while living in the United Kingdom. The word “accent” was defined to participants as

the phonetic difference between their speech patterns and those of a British person. After agreeing to take part in the study, participants were asked to rate the strength of their accent from 1 (no accent) to 7 (very strong accent). All subsequent measures used a similar Liker-type response scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

 IMITATIONS

Results indicate that average English speaker experience negative consequences specific to language-based stigma. However, we cannot discount the possibility that the consequences observed may be due to the fact that participants had received negative feedback generally or because they inferred that their ethnicity was the actual basis for discrimination. While the manipulation was designed to ensure that participants would associate the feedback given with their speech patterns specifically (and the manipulation check indicated that this was successful), future research should seek to fully eliminate these possibilities. In addition, given the relatively small samples used in this study, it is also imperative that these effects are replicated independently to confirm the disruptive effects of language-based stigma., 

 CONCLUSION

The two studies reported in this article establish that for average English speaker of English:

(1) Accented speech is a potentially devaluing characteristic, and

(2) Perceiving and anticipating language-based stigma has personal, interpersonal, and intergroup consequences. This glimpse into the experience of language-based stigma from the perspective of average English speaker extends previous research on accent perception. Importantly, we demonstrate that average English speaker are not only aware of the negative attitudes associated with their accent but are adversely affected by them. Like other stigmas, language-based stigma tends to evoke feelings of anxiety and impair both the cognitive abilities of its targets and their relationships with out-group members.