Reported Use of Second-Language Speech Accommodation in Everyday Interactions: The Role of Individual Differences.

BACKGROUND: Proficient speakers of a language often accommodate less proficient speakers during conversation to facilitate comprehension, but information about factors such as personality and language experience that may shape how speakers perceive accommodation is limited. PURPOSE: We developed an online questionnaire to clarify the use of speech accommodation in relation to individual differences in anxiety, personality, and English proficiency. METHOD: Using Qualtrics Panels for recruitment, we surveyed a representative sample of second-language (L2) English speakers (n = 201) and first-language (L1) English speakers (n = 192) across the United States. We report descriptive results in addition to correlations and a factor analysis to assess the perception of accommodation in L2 and L1 speakers. RESULTS: Only a third of L2 participants reported that L1 speakers change their speech when talking to them, and more than half are frustrated when L1 speakers do not accommodate them. Indeed, a majority of our L1 participants reported that they do not change their speech when talking to L2 speakers. For both groups, measures of anxiety, personality, and L2 proficiency modify results, providing novel evidence on factors that influence L2 accommodation. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that L1 speakers accommodate L2 speakers less frequently than previously reported. The data are discussed under communication accommodation theory.

Perception of speaker sincerity in complex social interactions by cochlear implant users.

Understanding insincere language (sarcasm and teasing) is a fundamental part of communication and crucial for maintaining social relationships. This can be a challenging task for cochlear implant (CIs) users who receive degraded suprasegmental information important for perceiving a speaker's attitude. We measured the perception of speaker sincerity (literal positive, literal negative, sarcasm, and teasing) in 16 adults with CIs using an established video inventory. Participants were presented with audio-only and audio-visual social interactions between two people with and without supporting verbal context. They were instructed to describe the content of the conversation and answer whether the speakers meant what they said. Results showed that subjects could not always identify speaker sincerity, even when the content of the conversation was perfectly understood. This deficit was greater for perceiving insincere relative to sincere utterances. Performance improved when additional visual cues or verbal context cues were provided. Subjects who were better at perceiving the content of the interactions in the audio-only condition benefited more from having additional visual cues for judging the speaker's sincerity, suggesting that the two modalities compete for cognitive recourses. Perception of content also did not correlate with perception of speaker sincerity, suggesting that what was said vs. how it was said were perceived using unrelated segmental versus suprasegmental cues. Our results further showed that subjects who had access to lower-order resolved harmonic information provided by hearing aids in the contralateral ear identified speaker sincerity better than those who used implants alone. These results suggest that measuring speech recognition alone in CI users does not fully describe the outcome. Our findings stress the importance of measuring social communication functions in people with CIs.