Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:44:04.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2022

Ruth Kircher
Affiliation:
Mercator European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning, and Fryske Akademy, Netherlands
Lena Zipp
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, D. and Hogg, M. A.. 1987. Language attitudes, frames of reference, and social identity: A Scottish dimension. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 6.3: 201213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrams, J. R., Barker, V., and Giles, H.. 2009. An examination of the validity of the Subjective Vitality Questionnaire. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 30.1: 5972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adam, R. 2016. Unimodal bilingualism in the Deaf community: Language contact between two sign languages in Australia and the United Kingdom. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Adams, Z. 2019. The relationship between implicit and explicit attitudes to British accents in enhancing the persuasiveness of children’s oral health campaigns. Linguistics Vanguard 5.s1: 20180008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adelung, J. C. 1781. Deutsche Sprachlehre. Zum Gebrauche der Schulen in den Königl. Preuß. Landen. Berlin: Christian Friedrich Voß und Sohn.Google Scholar
Agheyisi, R. and Fishman, J. A.. 1970. Language attitude studies: A brief survey of methodological approaches. Anthropological Linguistics 12.5: 137157.Google Scholar
Agresti, A. 2010. Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I. 1988. Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Algom, D., Chajut, E., and Lev, S.. 2004. A rational look at the emotional Stroop phenomenon: A generic slowdown, not a Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133.3: 323338.Google Scholar
Allgemeine Schulordnung, für die deutschen Normal- Haupt- und Trivialschulen in sämmtlichen Kaiserl. Königl. Erbländern d. d. Wien den 6ten December 1774. Vienna: Johann Thomas Edlen von Trattner. National Archives of Austria: AVA Unterricht StHK Teil 1, K. 87.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W. 1935. Attitudes. In Murchison, C., ed. Handbook of Social Psychology. Worchester: Clark University Press, 798844.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W. and Cantril, H.. 1934. Judging personality from voice. Journal of Social Psychology 5.1: 3755.Google Scholar
Álvarez‐Mosquera, P. 2017. The use of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) for sociolinguistic purposes in South Africa. Language Matters 48.2: 6990.Google Scholar
Anderson, T. K. and Toribio, A. J.. 2007. Attitudes towards lexical borrowing and intra-sentential code-switching among Spanish-English bilinguals. Spanish in Context 4.2: 217240.Google Scholar
Anderwald, L. 2016. Language between Description and Prescription: Verbs and Verb Categories in Nineteenth-Century Grammars of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. 2011. Language change and digital media: A review of conceptions and evidence. In Kristiansen, T. and Coupland, N., eds. Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. Oslo: Novus, 145161.Google Scholar
Angouri, J. 2018. Quantitative, qualitative, mixed or holistic research? Combining methods in linguistic research. In Litosseliti, L., ed. Research Methods in Linguistics. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury, 3556.Google Scholar
Angus, D. and Gallois, C.. 2018. New methodological approaches to intergroup communication. In Giles, H. and Harwood, J., eds. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Intergroup Communication. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 163179.Google Scholar
Anisfeld, M., Bogo, N., and Lambert, W. E.. 1962. Evaluational reactions to accented English speech. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 65.4: 223231.Google Scholar
Anthony, L. and Hardaker, C.. 2020. FireAnt (Version 2.0.2). Tokyo: Waseda University. www.laurenceanthony.net/software/fireant.Google Scholar
Appel, R. and Muysken, P.. 1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Årman, H. 2011. Ett attitydexperiment med språkpolitiska konsekvenser. Språk och stil 21: 204209.Google Scholar
Arredondo, M. M. and Gelman, S. A.. 2019. Do varieties of Spanish influence U.S. Spanish–English bilingual children’s friendship judgments? Child Development 90.2: 655671.Google Scholar
Arredondo, M. M., Hu, X.-S., Satterfield, T., Riobóo, A. T., Gelman, S. A., and Kovelman, I.. 2019a. Bilingual effects on lexical selection: A neurodevelopmental perspective. Brain and Language 195: ref. no. 104640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arredondo, M. M., Hu, X.-S., Seifert, E., Satterfield, T., and Kovelman, I.. 2019b. Bilingual exposure enhances left IFG specialization for language in children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 22.4: 783801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aslin, R. N. 2007. What’s in a look? Developmental Science 10.1: 4853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atagi, N. and Sandhofer, C. M.. 2019. Early language environments predict aspects of explicit language awareness development. Language Learning 70.2: 464505.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. and Kelly-Holmes, H.. 2016. Exploring language attitudes and ideologies in university students’ discussion of Irish in a context of increasing language diversity. Language and Intercultural Communication 16.2: 199215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audacity Team. 2020. Audacity®: Free Audio Editor and Recorder. www.audacityteam.org.Google Scholar
Auer, A., Peersman, C., Pickl, S., Rutten, G., and Vosters, R.. 2015. Historical sociolinguistics: The field and its future. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1.1: 112.Google Scholar
Auer, P. and Schmidt, J. E.. 2010. Language and Space: Theories and Methods. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ayres-Bennett, W. 2004. Sociolinguistic Variation in Seventeenth-Century France: Methodology and Case Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ayres-Bennett, W. 2006. Reading the Remarqueurs: Changing perceptions of ‘classic’ texts. Historiographia Linguistica 33.3: 263302.Google Scholar
Ayres-Bennett, W. and Bellamy, J.. 2021. Introduction. In Ayres-Bennett, W. and Bellamy, J., eds. Handbook of Language Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres-Bennett, W. and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I.. 2016. Prescriptivism in a comparative perspective: The case of France and England. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. and Percy, C., eds. Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards across Time and Space. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 105120.Google Scholar
Babcock, R. D. 2015. Rhetorical argument, folk linguistics, and content-oriented discourse analysis: A follow-up study. Ampersand 2: 6169.Google Scholar
Babel, M. 2010. Dialect divergence and convergence in New Zealand English. Language in Society 39.4: 437456.Google Scholar
Babel, M. 2012. Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. Journal of Phonetics 40.1: 177189.Google Scholar
Babel, M., Senior, B., and Bishop, S.. 2019. Do social preferences matter in lexical retuning? Laboratory Phonology 10.1: 4.Google Scholar
Bain, R. 1928. An attitude on attitude research. American Journal of Sociology 33.6: 940957.Google Scholar
Baker, C. 1992. Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ball, P. 1983. Stereotypes of Anglo-Saxon and non-Anglo-Saxon accents: Some exploratory Australian studies with the matched-guise technique. Language Sciences 5.2: 163183.Google Scholar
Ballinger, S., Brouillard, M., Ahooja, A., Kircher, R., Polka, L., and Byers-Heinlein, K.. 2020. Intersections of official and family language policy in Quebec. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Online ahead of print: 10.1080/01434632.2020.1752699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamberg, M. 1997. Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7.1–4: 335342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamman, D., Eisenstein, J., and Schnoebelen, T.. 2014. Gender identity and lexical variation in social media. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18.2: 135160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaji, M. R. and Heiphetz, L.. 2010. Attitudes. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., and Lindzey, G., eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology. 5th ed. Oxford: Wiley, 353393.Google Scholar
Bar-Anan, Y. and Nosek, B. A.. 2014. A comparative investigation of seven indirect attitude measures. Behavior Research Methods 46.3: 668688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baranowski, M. 2017. Class matters: The sociolinguistics of goose and goat in Manchester English. Language Variation and Change 29.3: 301339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, R. 2007. Doing Focus Groups. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Barbour, R. and Morgan, D. L., eds. 2017. A New Era in Focus Group Research: Challenges, Innovation and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. 2006. What have we been priming all these years? On the development, mechanisms, and ecology of nonconscious social behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology 36.2: 147168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baron, A. S. and Banaji, M. R.. 2006. The development of implicit attitudes: Evidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science 17.1: 5358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bashiruddin, A. 2013. Reflections on translating qualitative research data: Experiences from Pakistan. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 23.3: 357367.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S.. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67.1: 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, H.-D. L. and Murray, J.. 2017. Sign languages. In Garcia, O., Flores, N., and Spotti, M., eds. The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 243260.Google Scholar
Bayard, D., Weatherall, A., Gallois, C., and Pittam, J.. 2001. Pax Americana? Accent attitudinal evaluations in New Zealand, Australia, and America. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5.1: 2249.Google Scholar
Beal, J. C. 2012. ‘Á la mode de Paris’: Linguistic patriotism and francophobia in 18th-century Britain. In Percy, C. and Davidson, M. C., eds. The Languages of Nation: Attitudes and Norms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 141154.Google Scholar
Beal, J. C. 2019. Enregisterment and historical sociolinguistics. In Jansen, S. and Siebers, L., eds. Processes of Change: Studies in Late Modern and Present-Day English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 724.Google Scholar
Beckett, C. and Clegg, S.. 2007. Qualitative data from a postal questionnaire: Questioning the presumption of the value of presence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10.4: 307317.Google Scholar
Begus, K., Gliga, T., and Southgate, V.. 2016. Infants’ preferences for native speakers are associated with an expectation of information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, November 1, 113.44: 1239712402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, A. and Garrett, P., eds. 1998. Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bellamy, J. 2012. Language Attitudes in England and Austria: A Sociolinguistic Investigation into Perceptions of High and Low-Prestige Varieties in Manchester and Vienna. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Bender, E. M. 2005. On the boundaries of linguistic competence: Matched-guise experiments as evidence of knowledge of grammar. Lingua 115.11: 15791598.Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. 1984. Subjective reactions to phonological variation in Costa Rican Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 13: 415442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berl, R. E. W., Samarasinghe, A. N., Jordan, F. M., and Gavin, M. C.. 2020. The Position-Reputation-Information (PRI) scale of individual prestige. PLoS ONE 15.6: e0234428.Google Scholar
Bermeitinger, C. 2015. Priming. In Jin, Z., ed. Exploring Implicit Cognition: Learning, Memory, and Social-Cognitive Processes. Hershey: Information Science Reference, 1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, A. 2008. Les repercussions sociales et politiques de la loi 101. In Plourde, M. and Georgeault, P., eds. Le français au Québec: 400 ans d’histoire et de vie. Montreal: Fides, 360368.Google Scholar
Beukeboom, C. J. 2014. Mechanisms of linguistic bias: How words reflect and maintain stereotypic expectancies. In Laszlo, J., Forgas, J., and Vincze, O., eds. Social Cognition and Communication. New York: Psychology Press, 313330.Google Scholar
Bishop, H., Coupland, N., and Garrett, P.. 2005. Conceptual accent evaluation: Thirty years of accent prejudice in the UK. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 37.1: 131154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackledge, A. and Creese, A.. 2010. Multilingualism. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J., ed. 1999. Language Ideological Debates. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse. A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., and Robson, K.. 2001. Focus Groups in Social Research. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodenhausen, G. V., Kang, S. K., and Peery, D.. 2012. Social categorization and the perception of social groups. In Fiske, S. T. and Macrae, C. N., eds. The SAGE Handbook of Social Cognition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 311329.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and Weenink, D.. 2020. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.1.09. http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Bohner, G. 2001. Attitudes. In Hewstone, M. and Stroebe, W., eds. Introduction to Social Psychology. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 239282.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bourgeade, P. 1991. Chroniques du français quotidien. Paris: Belfond.Google Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y. 1984. Cross-cultural communication in Montreal: Two field studies since Bill 101. International Journal for the Sociology of Language 46: 3347.Google Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y. 2001. Reversing language shift in Quebec. In Fishman, J. A., ed. Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 101141.Google Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y. and Giles, H.. 1976. The language of cooperation in Wales: A field study. Language Sciences. 42: 1316.Google Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y. and Maass, A.. 2005. Linguistic prejudice and stereotypes. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. J., and Trudgill, P., eds. Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 15871601.Google Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H., and Lambert, W. E.. 1975. Social consequences of accommodating one’s style of speech: A cross-national investigation. Linguistics 13.166: 5571.Google Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H., and Rosenthal, D.. 1981. Notes on the construction of a subjective vitality questionnaire for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 2.2: 145155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H., and Tajfel, H.. 1973. Language as a determinant of Welsh identity. European Journal of Social Psychology 3.4: 447460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y., Montaruli, E., and Amiot, C. E.. 2007. Language planning and French–English bilingual communication: Montreal field studies from 1977 to 1997. International Journal for the Sociology of Language 185: 187224.Google Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y., Sachdev, I., Ehala, M., and Giles, H.. 2019. Assessing 40 years of group vitality research and future directions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 38.4: 409422.Google Scholar
Bradac, J. J. 1990. Language attitudes and impression formation. In Giles, H. and Robinson, W. P., eds. Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Chichester: Wiley, 387412.Google Scholar
Bradac, J. J. and Wisegarver, R.. 1984. Ascribed status, lexical diversity, and accent: Determinants of perceived status, solidarity, and control of speech style. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 3.4: 239255.Google Scholar
Brannen, J. and Pattman, R.. 2005. Work-family matters in the workplace: The use of focus groups in a study of a UK social services department. Qualitative Research 5.4: 523542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V.. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3.2: 77101.Google Scholar
Breckler, S. J. 1984. Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47.6: 11911205.Google Scholar
Briggs, C. L. 1986. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
British Sign Language Corpus Project. 2018. https://bslcorpusproject.org.Google Scholar
Brown, C. and Cichocki, W.. 1995. Listeners’ reactions to four French accents: A study of gender as a variable in linguistic attitudes. Linguistica Atlantica 17: 4562.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D. 2009. Open-response items in questionnaires. In Heigham, J. and Croker, R. A., eds. Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Introduction. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 200219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T. A. 2006. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Brugge, D., Edgar, T., George, K., Heung, J., and Laws, M. B.. 2009. Beyond literacy and numeracy in patient provider communication: Focus groups suggest roles for empowerment, provider attitude and language. BMC Public Health 9.354.Google Scholar
Bryman, A. 2004. Triangulation. In Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A., and Futing Liao, T., eds. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 11421143.Google Scholar
Bryman, A. 2007. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1.1: 822.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, I. 2006. Social stereotypes, personality traits and regional perception displaced: Attitudes towards the ‘new’ quotatives in the U.K. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10.3: 362381.Google Scholar
Burns, S., Matthews, P. A., and Nolan-Conroy, E.. 2001. Language attitudes. In Lucas, C., ed. The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 181216.Google Scholar
Busch, B. 2012. The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics 33.5: 503523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, B. 2018. The language portrait in multilingualism research: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies 236: 113.Google Scholar
Bush, C. N. 1967. Some acoustic parameters of speech and their relationship to the perception of dialect difference. TESOL Quarterly 1.3: 2030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J., Floccia, C., Goslin, J., and Panneton, R.. 2011. Infants’ discrimination of familiar and unfamiliar accents in speech. Infancy 16.4: 392417.Google Scholar
Buttelmann, D., Zmyj, N., Daum, M., and Carpenter, M.. 2013. Selective imitation of in-group over out-group members in 14-month-old infants. Child Development 84.2: 422428.Google Scholar
Butters, R. R. 1991. Review of Dennis Preston, Perceptual Dialectology. Language in Society 20.2: 294299.Google Scholar
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., and Munafò, M. R.. 2013. Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14: 365376.Google Scholar
Byers-Heinlein, K., Behrend, D. A., Said, L. M., Girgis, H., and Poulin-Dubois, D.. 2017. Monolingual and bilingual children’s social preferences for monolingual and bilingual speakers. Developmental Science 20.4: e12392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byun, K. S., de Vos, C., Bradford, A., Zeshan, U., and Levinson, S. C.. 2018. First encounters: Repair sequences in cross-signing. Topics in Cognitive Science 10.2: 314334.Google Scholar
Caillaud, S. and Flick, U.. 2017. Focus groups in triangulation contexts. In Barbour, R. S. and Morgan, D. L., eds. A New Era in Focus Group Research: Challenges, Innovation and Practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 155178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callan, V. J., Gallois, C., and Forbes, P. A.. 1983. Evaluative reactions to accented English: Ethnicity, sex role, and context. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 14.4: 407426.Google Scholar
Calton, C. 2020. The impact of student and teacher ASL ideologies on the use of English in the ASL classroom. In Kusters, A., Green, E. M., Moriarty, E., and Snoddon, K., eds. Sign Language Ideologies in Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter/Ishara Press, 111128.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, K. 2006. Listener perceptions of sociolinguistic variables: The case of (ING). Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University. http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~kbck/KCK_diss_tocs.html.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, K. 2007. Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech 82.1: 3264.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, K. 2011. The sociolinguistic variant as a carrier of social meaning. Language Variation and Change 22.3: 423441.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, K. 2012. The Implicit Association Test and sociolinguistic meaning. Lingua 122.7: 753763.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, K. 2013a. Language attitude surveys: Speaker evaluation studies. In Mallinson, C., Childs, B., and van Herk, G., eds. Data Collection in Sociolinguistics: Methods and Applications. New York: Routledge, 142146.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, K. 2013b. Connecting attitudes and language behavior via implicit sociolinguistic cognition. In Kristiansen, T. and Grondelaers, S., eds. Language (De)standardisations in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies. Oslo: Novus, 307329.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, K. and Torelli, A.. 2012. Tracking enregisterment through online social media. Presented at Regional Varieties, Language Shift and Linguistic Identities, Birmingham, 12–15 September.Google Scholar
Cantos, P. 2012. The use of linguistic corpora for the study of linguistic variation and change: Types and computational applications. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 99122.Google Scholar
Cardona, S. 1980. Defensa de La Enseñanza Del Lenguaje. Boletín de La Academia Puertorriqueña de La Lengua Española 8.1: 516.Google Scholar
Cargile, A. C. 1997. Attitudes toward Chinese-accented speech: An investigation in two contexts. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16.4: 434443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cargile, A. C. 2000. Evaluations of employment suitability: Does accent always matter? Journal of Employment Counseling 37.3: 165177.Google Scholar
Cargile, A. C. and Bradac, J. J.. 2001. Attitudes toward language: A review of speaker-evaluation research and a general process model. In Gudykunst, W. B., ed. Communication Yearbook 25. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 347382.Google Scholar
Cargile, A. C. and Giles, H.. 1997. Understanding language attitudes: Exploring listener affect and identity. Language and Communication 17.3: 195217.Google Scholar
Cargile, A. C. and Giles, H.. 1998. Language attitudes toward varieties of English: An American-Japanese context. Journal of Applied Communication Research 26.3: 338356.Google Scholar
Cargile, A. C., Takai, J., and Rodríguez, J. I.. 2006. Attitudes toward African–American Vernacular English: A US export to Japan? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 27.6: 443456.Google Scholar
Cargile, A. C., Giles, H., Ryan, E. B., and Bradac, J. J.. 1994. Language attitudes as a social process: A conceptual model and new directions. Language and Communication 14.3: 211236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, H. K. and McHenry, M. A.. 2006. Effect of accent and dialect on employability. Journal of Employment Counseling 43.2: 7081.Google Scholar
Carmichael, K. 2016. Place-linked expectations and listener awareness of regional accents. In Babel, A., ed. Awareness and Control in Sociolinguistic Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 152176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, T. H., McCauley, C., Sperber, R. D., and Parmelee, C. M.. 1982. Words, pictures, and priming: On semantic activation, conscious identification, and the automaticity of information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8.6: 757777.Google Scholar
Carranza, M. and Ryan, E. B.. 1975. Evaluative reactions of bilingual Anglo- and Mexican American adolescents towards speakers of English and Spanish. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 6: 83104.Google Scholar
Carrie, E. 2017. ‘British is professional, American is urban’: Attitudes towards English reference accents in Spain. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 27.2: 427447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrie, E. and Drummond, R.. n.d. The Accentism Project. http://www.accentism.org/.Google Scholar
Carrie, E. and McKenzie, R. M.. 2018. American or British? L2 speakers’ recognition and evaluations of accent features in English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 39.4: 313328.Google Scholar
Casesnoves Ferrer, R. and Sankoff, D.. 2003. Identity as the primary determinant of language choice in Valencia. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7.1: 5064.Google Scholar
Castillo-Montoya, M. 2016. Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol refinement framework. Qualitative Report 21.5: 811831.Google Scholar
Cavallaro, F., Sielhamer, M. F., Yee, H. Y., and Chin, N. B.. 2018. Attitudes to Mandarin Chinese varieties in Singapore. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 28.2: 195225.Google Scholar
Cellard, J. 1979. La vie du langage: Chroniques 1971–1975, Le Monde. Paris: Le Robert.Google Scholar
Chakrani, B. 2015. Arabic interdialectal encounters: Investigating the influence of attitudes on language accommodation. Language and Communication 41: 1727.Google Scholar
Chan, E., Ybarra, O., and Schwarz, N.. 2006. Reversing the affective congruency effect: The role of target word frequency of occurrence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42.3: 365372.Google Scholar
Chappell, W. 2016. On the social perception of intervocalic /s/ voicing in Costa Rican Spanish. Language Variation and Change 28.3: 357378.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. and Fox, S.. 2016. From sociolinguistic research to English language teaching. In Corrigan, K. P. and Mearns, A., eds. Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 265290.Google Scholar
Chevalier, B. A. M., Watson, B. M., Barras, M. A., and Cottrell, W. N.. 2017. Investigating strategies used by hospital pharmacists to effectively communicate with patients during medication counselling. Health Expectations 20.5: 11211132.Google Scholar
Chioti, M. 2019. The effect of priming on accent attitudes: An examination of their affective and cognitive bases. Presented at UK Language Variation and Change 12, London, 3–5 September.Google Scholar
Cho, J. Y. and Lee, E.-H.. 2014. Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report 19.64: 120.Google Scholar
Christensen, R. H. B. 2015. Ordinal-regression models for ordinal data. R Package Version 2015.Google Scholar
Christensen, R. H. B. and Brockhoff, P. B.. 2013. Analysis of sensory ratings data with cumulative link models. Journal de La Société Française de Statistique 154.3: 5879.Google Scholar
Cieri, C. 2011. Making a field recording. In Di Paolo, M. and Yaeger-Dror, M., eds. Sociophonetics: A Student’s Guide. Abingdon: Routledge, 2435.Google Scholar
Clachar, A. 1997. Resistance to the English language in Puerto Rico: Toward a theory of language and intergroup distinctiveness. Linguistics and Education 9.1: 6998.Google Scholar
Clopper, C. G. and Pisoni, D. B.. 2004. Some acoustic cues for the perceptual categorization of American English regional dialects. Journal of Phonetics 32.1: 111140.Google Scholar
Clopper, C. G. and Walker, A.. 2017. Effects of lexical competition and dialect exposure on phonological priming. Language and Speech 60.1: 85109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Codó, E. 2008. Interviews and questionnaires. In Wei, L. and Moyer, M. G., eds. The Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Malden: Blackwell, 158176.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. and Manion, L.. 1994. Research Methods in Education. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. 1950. Regards sur la langue française. Paris: Sedes.Google Scholar
Collins, A. M. and Loftus, E. F.. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82.6: 407428.Google Scholar
Conama, J. B. 2020. 35 years and counting! An ethnographic analysis of sign language ideologies within the Irish Sign Language recognition campaign. In Kusters, A., Green, E. M., Moriarty, E., and Snoddon, K., eds. Sign Language Ideologies in Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter/Ishara Press, 265286.Google Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, J. C. and Hernández-Campoy, J. M.. 2012. Introduction. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 18.Google Scholar
Cook, G. 2011. Discourse analysis. In Simpson, J., ed. The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, 431444.Google Scholar
Cook, S., Fallon, N., Wright, H., Thomas, A., Giesbrecht, T., Field, M., and Stancak, A.. 2015. Pleasant and unpleasant odors influence hedonic evaluations of human faces: An event-related potential study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9: 661.Google Scholar
Cooper, A. 2015. Signed language sovereignties in Viet Nam: Deaf community responses to ASL-based tourism. In Friedner, M. and Kusters, A., eds. It’s a Small World: International Deaf Spaces and Encounters. Washington: Gallaudet University Press, 95111.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. L. 1975. Introduction to language attitudes II. Special issue of International Journal of the Sociology of Language 6: 59.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. L. 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corriveau, K. H., Kinzler, K. D., and Harris, P. L.. 2013. Accuracy trumps accent in children’s endorsement of object labels. Developmental Psychology 49.3: 470479.Google Scholar
Cotter, C. 2003. Prescription and practice: Motivations behind change in news discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4.1: 4574.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M.. 2017. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. 2014. Sociolinguistic change, vernacularization and broadcast British media. In Androutsopoulos, J., ed. Mediatization and Sociolinguistic Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 6796.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. and Bishop, H.. 2007. Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11.1: 7493.Google Scholar
Cramer, J. 2010. The effect of borders on the linguistic production and perception of regional identity in Louisville, Kentucky. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/18426/Cramer_Jennifer.pdf?sequence=1.Google Scholar
Cramer, J. 2016. Rural vs. urban: Perception and production of identity in a border city. In Cramer, J. and Montgomery, C., eds. Cityscapes and Perceptual Dialectology: Global Perspectives on Non-Linguists’ Knowledge of the Dialect Landscape. Boston: de Gruyter, 2753.Google Scholar
Cramer, J. 2018. The emic and etic in perceptual dialectology. In Evans, B. E., Benson, E. J., and Stanford, J. N., eds. Language Regard: Methods, Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 6281.Google Scholar
Cramer, J. and Montgomery, C., eds. 2016. Cityscapes and Perceptual Dialectology: Global Perspectives on Non-Linguists’ Knowledge of the Dialect Landscape. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Crasborn, O. 2015. Transcription and notation methods. In Orfanidou, E., Woll, B., and Morgan, G., eds. Research Methods in Sign Language Studies. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 7488.Google Scholar
Creber, C. and Giles, H.. 1983. Social context and language attitudes: The role of formality–informality of the setting. Language Sciences 5.2: 155161.Google Scholar
Creel, S. C. 2018. Accent detection and social cognition: Evidence of protracted learning. Developmental Science 21.2: e12524.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. and Plano Clark, V. L.. 2010. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Cristia, A., Minagawa-Kawai, Y., Egorova, N., Gervain, J., Filippin, L., Cabrol, D., and Dupoux, E.. 2014. Neural correlates of infant accent discrimination: An FNIRS study. Developmental Science 17.4: 628635.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16: 297334.Google Scholar
Cukor-Avila, P., Jeon, L., Rector, P. C., Tiwari, C., and Shelton, Z.. 2012. ‘Texas – it’s like a whole nuther country’: Mapping Texans’ perceptions of dialect variation in the Lone Star State. Texas Linguistics Forum 55: 1019.Google Scholar
Cutler, C. 2016. ‘Ets jast ma booooooooooooo’: Social meanings of Scottish accents on YouTube. In Squires, L., ed. English in Computer-Mediated Communication: Variation, Representation, and Change. Berlin: de Gruyter, 69101.Google Scholar
Cutler, C. 2019. Metapragmatic comments and orthographic performances of a New York accent on YouTube. World Englishes 39.1: 3653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cvencek, D., Greenwald, A. G., and Meltzoff, A. N.. 2011. Measuring implicit attitudes of 4-year-olds: The preschool Implicit Association Test. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 109.2: 187200.Google Scholar
Dahlgreen, W. 2014. Brummie is the least attractive reference (YouGov survey). https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2014/12/09/accent-map2.Google Scholar
Dailey-O’Cain, J. 1997. Geographic and socio-political influences on language ideology and attitudes towards language in post-unification Germany. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Michigan.Google Scholar
Dailey-O’Cain, J. 2000. The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4.1: 6080.Google Scholar
Dailey-O’Cain, J. and Liebscher, G.. 2011. Language attitudes, migrant identities and space. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 212: 91133.Google Scholar
Dailey, R. M., Giles, H., and Jansma, L. L.. 2005. Language attitudes in an Anglo-Hispanic context: The role of the linguistic landscape. Language and Communication 25.1: 2738.Google Scholar
Danet, B. and Herring, S., eds. 2003. The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture and Communication in Instant Messaging, Email and Chat. Special issue of Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 9.1. https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/issue/9/1.Google Scholar
Dautel, J. B. and Kinzler, K. D.. 2017. Once a French speaker, always a French speaker? Bilingual children’s thinking about the stability of language. Cognitive Science 42.S1: 287302.Google Scholar
Davies, B. and Harré, R.. 1990. Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20.1: 4363.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2002–. English Corpora. https://www.english-corpora.org/.Google Scholar
Day, R. R. 1980. The development of linguistic attitudes and preferences. TESOL Quarterly 14.1: 2737.Google Scholar
De Costa, P. I. 2016. Ethics in Applied Linguistics Research: Language Researcher Narratives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Fina, A. and Georgakopoulou, A.. 2012. Analyzing Narrative Discourse and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Houwer, A. 1999. Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role of parental beliefs and attitudes. In Extra, G. and Verhoeven, L., eds. Bilingualism and Migration. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 7596.Google Scholar
De Houwer, J. 2001. A structural and process analysis of the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37.6: 443451.Google Scholar
De Houwer, J., Heider, N., Spruyt, A., Roets, A., and Hughes, S.. 2015. The relational responding task: Toward a new implicit measure of beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 319.Google Scholar
De Houwer, J., Teige-Mocigemba, S., Spruyt, A., and Moors, A.. 2009. Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin 135.3: 347368.Google Scholar
De la Zerda Flores, N. and Hopper, R.. 1975. Mexican American’s evaluations of spoken Spanish and English. Speech Monographs 42.2: 9198.Google Scholar
De Meulder, M. 2019. ‘So, why do you sign?’: Deaf and hearing new signers, their motivation, and revitalisation policies for sign languages. Applied Linguistics Review 10.4: 705724.Google Scholar
De Meulder, M. and Birnie, I.. 2020. Language diaries in the study of language use and language choice: The case of Flemish Sign Language and Scottish Gaelic. Language Awareness. 30.3: 217233.Google Scholar
De Meulder, M. and Murray, J. J.. 2017. Buttering their bread on both sides? The recognition of sign languages and the aspirations of deaf communities. Language Problems and Language Planning 41.2: 136158.Google Scholar
De Meulder, M. and Snoddon, K., eds. 2020. Ideologies in Sign Language Vitality and Revitalisation. Special issue of Language and Communication 74.Google Scholar
De Meulder, M., Kusters, A., and Napier, J.. 2022. Researching family language policy in multilingual deaf-hearing families: Using autoethnographic, visual, and narrative methods. In Wright, L. and Higgins, C., eds. Diversifying Family Language Policy. London: Bloomsbury, 165189.Google Scholar
De Meulder, M., Murray, J. J., and McKee, R., eds. 2019. The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages. Advocacy and Outcomes Around the World. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
De Meulder, M., Kusters, A., Moriarty, E., and Murray, J. J.. 2019. Describe, don’t prescribe: The practice and politics of translanguaging in the context of deaf signers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 40.10: 892906.Google Scholar
Dearnley, E. 2016. Translators and their Prologues in Medieval England. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer.Google Scholar
DeCasper, A. J. and Fifer, W. P.. 1980. Of human bonding: Newborns prefer their mothers’ voices. Science 208.4448: 11741176.Google Scholar
DeJesus, J. M., Hwang, H. G., Dautel, J. B., and Kinzler, K. D.. 2017. Bilingual children’s social preferences hinge on accent. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 164: 178191.Google Scholar
DeJesus, J. M., Hwang, H. G., Dautel, J. B., and Kinzler, K. D.. 2018. ‘American = English speaker’ before ‘American = White’: The development of children’s reasoning about nationality. Child Development 89.5: 17521767.Google Scholar
Dekker, R. 2002. Introduction. In Dekker, R., ed. Egodocuments and History. Autobiographical Writing in its Social Context since the Middle Ages. Hilversum: Verloren, 720.Google Scholar
Deumert, A. and Vandenbussche, W., eds. 2003. Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. 2009. Perception, attitude and motivation. In Cook, V. and Wei, L., eds. Language Teaching and Learning. London: Continuum, 163192.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. 2013. Emotions in Multiple Languages. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. 2018. Online questionnaires. In Phakiti, A., De Costa, P., Plonsky, L., and Starfield, S., eds. The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 269286.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. and McCloskey, J.. 2014. Attitudes towards foreign accents among adult multilingual language users. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 36.3: 221238.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. and Wei, L.. 2014. Attitudes towards code-switching among adult mono- and multilingual language users. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35.3: 235251.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M., Rolland, L., and Costa, B.. 2019. Planning and conducting ethical interviews: Power, language and emotions. In McKinley, J. and Rose, K., eds. The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge, 279289.Google Scholar
Di Paolo, M. and Yaeger-Dror, M., eds. 2011. Sociophonetics: A Student’s Guide. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. and Killam, J.. 2012. Assessing language attitudes through a matched-guise experiment: The case of consonantal deletion in Venezuelan Spanish. Hispania 95.1: 83102.Google Scholar
Dickinson, J. and Young, B.. 2003. A Short History of Quebec. Montreal/Kingston: McGill and Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, J. A., Mahoney, B., and Cocks, R.. 2002. Accents of guilt? Effects of regional accent, race, and crime type on attribution of guilt. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 21.2: 162168.Google Scholar
Dollinger, S. 2015. The Written Questionnaire in Social Dialectology: History, Theory, Practices. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Domínguez-Rosado, B. 2015. The Unliking of Language and Puerto Rican Identity: New Trends in Sight. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. C. 1981. Language Death. The Life Cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. C. 1998. Western language ideologies and small-language prospects. In Grenoble, L. A. and Whaley, L. J., eds. Endangered Languages: Current Issues and Future Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 321.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. 2003. Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration and Processing. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. and Taguchi, T.. 2010. Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Doyen, S., Klein, O., Simons, D., and Cleeremans, A.. 2014. On the other side of the mirror: Priming in cognitive and social psychology. Social Cognition 32: 1232.Google Scholar
Drager, K. 2018. Experimental Research Methods in Sociolinguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Drager, K., Hay, J., and Walker, A.. 2010. Pronounced rivalries: Attitudes and speech production. Te Reo 53: 2753.Google Scholar
Drager, K., Hardeman Guthrie, K., Schutz, R., and Chik, I.. 2021. Perceptions of style: A focus on fundamental frequency and perceived social characteristics. To appear in Hall-Lew, L., Moore, E., and Podesva, R. J., eds. Social Meaning and Linguistic Variation: Theorizing the Third Wave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 176202.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M. 2016. Language attitudes as intergroup terrain. In Giles, H. and Maass, A., eds. Advances in Intergroup Communication. New York: Peter Lang, 5166.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M. 2018. Language attitudes. In Giles, H. and Harwood, J., eds. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Intergroup Communication. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 179192.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M. and Giles, H.. 2014. The reference frame effect: An intergroup perspective on language attitudes. Human Communication Research 40.1: 91111.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M. and Giles, H.. 2016. I don’t like you because you’re hard to understand: The role of processing fluency on the language attitudes process. Human Communication Research 42.1: 396420.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M. and Goatley-Soan, S.. 2020. Americans’ attitudes towards foreign accents: Evaluative hierarchies and underlying processes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 43.2: 167181.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M., Berglund, C., and Blauvelt, T. K.. 2018. Figuring out who’s who: The role of social categorization in the language attitudes process. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 37.1: 2850.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M., Giles, H., and Watson, B. M.. 2013. Language ideologies and language attitudes: A foundational framework. In Giles, H. and Watson, B., eds. The Social Meanings of Language, Dialect and Accent: International Perspectives on Speech Styles. New York: Peter Lang, 125.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M., Fasoli, F., Cramer, J., and Rakić, T.. 2021. Toward a century of language attitudes research: Looking back and moving forward. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 40.1: 6079.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M., Giles, H., Beck, A. C., and Tatum, N. T.. 2017. The fluency principle: Why foreign accent strength negatively biases language attitudes. Communication Monographs 84.3: 385405.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M., Mastro, D., Giles, H., and Sink, A.. 2016. Silencing nonstandard speakers: A content analysis of accent portrayals on American primetime television. Language in Society 45.1: 5985.Google Scholar
Drożdżowicz, A. 2021. Bringing back the voice: On the auditory objects of speech perception. Synthese 199: 661687.Google Scholar
Drummond, R. and Carrie, E.. 2019. Manchester Voices. A research project into the accents, dialects and people of Greater Manchester. https://www.manchestervoices.org/.Google Scholar
Duchêne, A. and Heller, M., eds. 2012. Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., and Banaji, M. R.. 2008. The development of implicit intergroup cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12.7: 248253.Google Scholar
Durham, M. 2014. Thirty years later: Real-time change and stability in attitudes towards the dialect in Shetland. In Lawson, R., ed. Sociolinguistics in Scotland. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 296318.Google Scholar
Durham, M. 2016. Changing attitudes towards the Welsh English accent: A view from Twitter. In Durham, M. and Morris, J., eds. Sociolinguistics in Wales. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 181205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S.. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S.. 1998. Attitude structure and function. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., and Lindzey, G., eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 269322.Google Scholar
Echeverria, B. 2005. Language attitudes in San Sebastian: The Basque vernacular as challenge to Spanish language hegemony. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 26.3: 249264.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 1989. Jocks and Burnouts: Social identity in the High School. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87100.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2014. Ethics in linguistic research. In Podesva, R. J. and Sharma, D., eds. Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edley, N. and Litosseliti, L.. 2010. Contemplating interviews and focus groups. In Litosseliti, L., ed. Research Methods in Linguistics. London: Continuum, 155179.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. and Fuchs, R.. 2018. A cluster analysis of attitudes to English in Germany and the Netherlands. World Englishes 37.4: 653667.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. and Potter, J.. 1992. Discursive Psychology. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R. 1982. Language attitudes and their implications among English speakers. In Ryan, E. B. and Giles, H., eds. Attitudes towards Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts. London: Edward Arnold, 2033.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R. 1994. Multilingualism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R. 2013. Sociolinguistics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R. 2017. The sociology of language teaching and learning. In Hinkel, E., ed. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Vol. 3. London: Routledge, 314.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R. 2020. History, philosophy and the social psychology of language. In Al-Hoorie, A. H. and MacIntyre, P. D., eds. Contemporary Language Motivation Theory: 60 Years Since Gardner and Lambert 1959. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 262282.Google Scholar
Edwards, K. 1990. The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59.2: 202216.Google Scholar
Edwards, T. 2014. Language emergence in the Seattle DeafBlind community. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Eimer, M. and Schlaghecken, F.. 1998. Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24.6: 17371747.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, J. 2015. Systematic patterning in phonologically-motivated orthographic variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19.2: 161188.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, J., O’Connor, B., Smith, N. A., and Xing, E. P.. 2014. Diffusion of lexical change in social media. PLoS ONE 9.11: e113114.Google Scholar
El-Dash, L. G. and Busnardo, J.. 2001. Brazilian attitudes toward English: Dimensions of status and solidarity. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11.1: 5774.Google Scholar
El-Dash, L. and Tucker, R.. 1975. Subjective reactions to various speech styles in Egypt. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 6.3: 3354.Google Scholar
Engelbrecht, H. 1984. Geschichte des österreichischen Bildungswesens. Erziehung und Unterricht auf dem Boden Österreichs. Vol. 3: Von der frühen Aufklärung bis zum Vormärz. Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag.Google Scholar
ESRI. 2011b. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands: Environmental Systems Research Institute.Google Scholar
ESRI. 2019. ArcGIS online. Redlands: Environmental Systems Research Institute. https://www.arcgis.com/.Google Scholar
Esses, V. M. and Maio, G. R.. 2002. Expanding the assessment of attitude components and structure: The benefits of open-ended measures. European Review of Social Psychology 12.1: 71101.Google Scholar
Estes, Z. and Adelman, J. S.. 2008. Automatic vigilance for negative words in lexical decision and naming: Comment on Larsen, Mercer, and Balota (2006). Emotion 8.4: 441444.Google Scholar
Evans, B. E. 2013. Seattle to Spokane: Mapping perceptions of English in Washington State. Journal of English Linguistics 41.3: 268291.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1995. Media Discourse. Arnold: London.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2013. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2014. Language and Power. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., and Wodak, R.. 2011. Critical Discourse Analysis. In van Dijk, T. A., ed. Discourse Studies. A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: SAGE, 357378.Google Scholar
Fan, S. P., Liberman, Z., Keysar, B., and Kinzler, K. D.. 2015. The exposure advantage: Early exposure to a multilingual environment promotes effective communication. Psychological Science 26.7: 10901097.Google Scholar
Fantz, R. L. 1964. Visual experience in infants: Decreased attention to familiar patterns relative to novel ones. Science 146.3644: 668670.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. 1984. The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fasoli, F. and Maass, A.. 2019. The social costs of sounding gay: Voice-based impressions of adoption applicants. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 39.1: 112131.Google Scholar
Faulstich, K. 2008. Konzepte des Hochdeutschen. Der Sprachnormierungsdiskurs im 18. Jahrhundert. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H., Chen, J., McDonel, E. C., and Sherman, S. J.. 1982. Attitude accessibility, attitude–behavior consistency and the strength of the object–evaluation association. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 18.4: 339357.Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., and Kardes, F. R.. 1986. On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50.2: 229238.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. and Bluemke, M.. 2005. Faking the IAT: Aided and unaided response control on the Implicit Association Test. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 27.4: 307316.Google Scholar
Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Field, A. and Hole, G.. 2003. How to Design and Report Experiments. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Fifer, W. P. and Moon, C.. 1989. Psychobiology of newborn auditory preferences. Seminars in Perinatology 13.5: 430433.Google Scholar
Filipin, N. Z. 2015. Matched guise technique revisited: Zagreb case study. In Peti-Stanti, A., Stanojevi, M.-M., and Antunovi, G., eds. Language Varieties between Norms and Attitudes: South Slavic Perspectives. Proceedings from the 2013 CALS Conference. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 181196.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I.. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fisher, W. M., Doddington, G. R., and Goudie-Marshall, K. M.. 1986. The DARPA speech recognition research database: Specifications and status. In Proceedings of the DARPA Speech Recognition Workshop, 12–20 February 1986, 93–99.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. 1969. Bilingual attitudes and behaviors. Language Sciences 5: 511.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. 1970. Sociolinguistics: A Brief Introduction. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. 1976. The Sociology of Language. In Fishman, J. A., ed. Advances in the Sociology of Language. Vol. 1. Basic Concepts, Theories and Problems: Alternative Approaches. The Hague: Mouton, 217404.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, J. A. 2001. Why is it so hard to save a threatened language? In Fishman, J., ed. Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 122.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. and Agheyisi, R.. 1970. Language attitude studies: A brief survey of methodological approaches. Anthropological Linguistics 12.5: 137157.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., and Glick, P.. 2007. Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11.2: 7783.Google Scholar
Floccia, C., Butler, J., Girard, F., and Goslin, J.. 2009. Categorization of regional and foreign accent in 5- to 7-year-old British children. International Journal of Behavioral Development 33.4: 366735.Google Scholar
Forgas, J. and Bower, G.. 1987. Mood effects of person-perception judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53.1: 5360.Google Scholar
Forgas, J. and Moylan, S.. 1989. After the movies: Transient mood and social judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13.4: 467477.Google Scholar
Forster, K. and Davis, C.. 1984. Repetition and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10.4: 680698.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A., Wolford, G., Slade, R., and Tassinary, L.. 1981. Lexical access with and without awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 110.3: 341362.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Franz, N. K. 2011. The unfocused focus group: Benefit or bane? The Qualitative Report 16.5: 13801388.Google Scholar
Freire-Vidal, Y. and Graells-Garrido, E.. 2019. Characterization of local attitudes toward immigration using social media. In Companion Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 783790.Google Scholar
Friese, M., Bluemke, M., and Wänke, M.. 2007. Predicting voting behavior with implicit attitude measures. Experimental Psychology 54.4: 247255.Google Scholar
Frijhoff, W. 2015. Multilingualism and the challenge of frenchification in the early modern Dutch Republic. In Peersman, C., Rutten, G., and Vosters, R., eds. Past, Present and Future of a Language Border. Germanic-Romanic Encounters in the Low Countries. Berlin: De Gruyter, 115140.Google Scholar
Frings, C., Amendt, A., and Spence, C.. 2011. When seeing doesn’t matter: Assessing the after-effects of tactile distractor processing in the blind and the sighted. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 37.4: 11741181.Google Scholar
Frings, C., Schneider, K. K., and Fox, E.. 2015. The negative priming paradigm: An update and implications for selective attention. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 22.6: 15771597.Google Scholar
Fuertes, J. N., Gottdiener, W., Martin, H., Gilbert, T. C., and Giles, H.. 2012. A meta-analysis of the effects of speakers’ accents on interpersonal evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology 42.1: 120133.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. M. 2018. Ideologies of language, bilingualism, and monolingualism. In De Houwer, A. and Ortega, L., eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 119134.Google Scholar
Gaies, S. J. and Beebe, J. D.. 1991. The matched-guise technique for measuring attitudes and their implications of language education: A critical assessment. In Sadtono, E., ed. Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 156178.Google Scholar
Gal, S. 1979. Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gal, S. and Irvine, J. T.. 2019. Signs of Difference: Language and Ideology in Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gal, S. and Woolard, K., eds. 2001. Languages and Publics: The Making of Authority, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Gałecki, A. and Burzykowski, T.. 2013. Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using R: A Step-by-Step Approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Gallois, C. and Callan, V. J.. 1981. Personality impressions elicited by accented English speech. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 12.3: 347359.Google Scholar
Gallois, C. and Giles, H.. 2015. Communication Accommodation Theory. In Tracy, K., Ilie, C., and Sandel, T., eds. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Hoboken: Wiley, 159176.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C. 1982. Language attitudes and language learning. In Ryan, E. B. and Giles, H., eds. Attitudes towards Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts. London: Edward Arnold, 132147.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C. and Lambert, W. E.. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C. and MacIntyre, P. D.. 1993. On the measurement of affective variables in second language learning. Language Learning 43.2: 157194.Google Scholar
Garrett, P. 2004. Attitude measurements. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K., and Trudgill, P., eds. Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 12511260.Google Scholar
Garrett, P. 2010. Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, P., Coupland, N., and Williams, A.. 2003. Investigating Language Attitudes: Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, P., Williams, A., and Evans, B.. 2005. Attitudinal data from New Zealand, Australia, the USA and the UK about each other’s Englishes: Recent changes? Or consequences of methodology? Multilingua 24.3: 211235.Google Scholar
Gass, R. H. and Seiter, J. S.. 1999. Persuasion, Social Influence and Compliance Gaining. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B. and De Houwer, J.. 2014. Implicit measures in social and personality psychology. In Reis, H. T. and Judd, C. M., eds. Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 283310.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B. and Hahn, A.. 2019. Implicit measures: Procedures, use, and interpretation. In Blanton, H., LaCroix, J., and Webster, G., eds. Measurement in Social Psychology. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2955.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B., Deutsch, R., and Banse, R.. 2011. Response interference tasks as indirect measures of automatic associations. In Klauer, K. C., Voss, A., and Stahl, C., eds. Cognitive Methods in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford, 78123.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B., Peters, K. R., and LeBel, E. P.. 2008. What makes mental associations personal or extra-personal? Conceptual issues in the methodological debate about implicit attitude measures. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2.2: 10021023.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. 1992. The Social Mind: Language, Ideology and Social Practice. New York: Bergin and Garvey.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. 2011. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Geer, J. G. 1988. What do open-ended questions measure? Public Opinion Quarterly 52.3: 365367.Google Scholar
Geer, J. G. 1991. Do open-ended questions measure ‘salient’ issues? Public Opinion Quarterly 55.3: 360370.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 2008. Prototypes, stereotypes and semantic norms. In Kristiansen, G. and Dirven, R., ed. Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2144.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. 2003. The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Generalitat de Catalunya, University of Perpignan and Conseil Départemental des Pyrénées-Orientales. 2015. Coneixements i usos lingüístics a la Catalunya del Nord. Principals resultats de l’Enquesta d’usos lingüístics a la Catalunya del Nord (EULCN) 2015. http://llengua.gencat.cat/web/.content/documents/dadesestudis/altres/arxius/EULCN_2015_principals_resultats.pdf.Google Scholar
Genesee, F. and Bourhis, R. Y.. 1988. Evaluative reactions to language choice strategies: The role of sociocultural factors. Language and Communication 8.3–4: 229250.Google Scholar
Genesee, F. and Holobow, N. E.. 1989. Change and stability in intergroup perceptions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 8.1: 1738.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. and Spilioti, T., eds. 2015. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Georgiou, A. and Karatsareas, P.. Forthcoming. Teaching Greek in complementary schools in the UK: Policies and practices in the Greek Cypriot diaspora. In Ćalić, J. and Tarsoly, E., eds. Fashioning Language: The Politics of Teaching and Learning Languages. London: University College London Press.Google Scholar
Gerlach, F. W. 1758. Kurzgefasste Deutsche Sprachlehre, welche die allgemeinen Gründe, samt einem Verzeichnisse der Stammwörter, und vieler abstammenden und zusammengesetzten Wörter der deutschen Sprache in sich enthält; und aus Hochachtung der Muttersprache und der Wissenschaften herausgegeben worden […]. Vienna: Eva Maria Schilgin.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. P. 1983. Attitudes towards languages and code-mixing in Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 4.2–3: 129147.Google Scholar
Giddings, L. S. 2006. Mixed-methods research, positivism dressed in drag! Journal of Research in Nursing 11.3: 195203.Google Scholar
Gijssels, T., Staum Casasanto, L., Jasmin, K., Hagoort, P., and Casasanto, D.. 2016. Speech accommodation without priming: The case of pitch. Discourse Processes 53.4: 233251.Google Scholar
Giles, H. 1970. Evaluative reactions to accents. Educational Review 22.3: 211227.Google Scholar
Giles, H. 1973. Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15.2: 87105.Google Scholar
Giles, H. 1990. Social meanings of Welsh English. In Coupland, N., ed. English in Wales: Diversity, Conflict, and Change. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 258282.Google Scholar
Giles, H., ed. 2016. Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities across Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Billings, A. C.. 2008. Assessing language attitudes: Speaker evaluation studies. In Davies, A. and Elder, C., eds. The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden: Blackwell, 187209.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Bourhis, R. Y.. 1973. Dialect perception revisited. Quarterly Journal of Speech 59.3: 337342.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Bourhis, R. Y.. 1976. Voice and racial categorization in Britain. Communication Monographs 43.2: 108114.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Coupland, N.. 1991. Language: Contexts and Consequences. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Johnson, P.. 1987. Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psychological approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 68: 6999.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Marlow, M. L.. 2011. Theorizing language attitudes: Existing frameworks, an integrative model, and new directions. Annals of the International Communication Association 35.1: 161197.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Ogay, T.. 2007. Communication Accommodation Theory. In Whaley, B. B. and Samter, W., eds. Explaining Communication: Contemporary Theories and Exemplars. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 293310.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Powesland, P. F.. 1975. Speech Style and Social Evaluation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Ryan, E. B.. 1982. Prolegomena for developing a social psychological theory of language attitudes. In Ryan, E. B. and Giles, H., eds. Attitudes Towards Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts. London: Edward Arnold, 208223.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Sassoon, C.. 1983. The effect of speakers’ accent, social class background and message style on British listeners’ social judgements. Language and Communication 3.3: 305313.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Watson, B., eds. 2013. The Social Meanings of Language, Dialect and Accent: International Perspectives on Speech Styles. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., and Davies, A.. 1979. Prestige speech styles: The imposed norm and inherent value hypotheses. In McCormack, W. C. and Wurm, S. A., eds. Language and Society: Anthropological Issues. The Hague: Mouton, 589596.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., and Taylor, D. M.. 1977. Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In Giles, H., ed. Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press, 307348.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Wilson, P., and Conway, A.. 1981. Accent and lexical diversity as determinants of impression formation and perceived employment suitability. Language Sciences 3.1: 91103.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., Trudgill, P., and Lewis, A.. 1974. The imposed norm hypothesis: A validation. Quarterly Journal of Speech 60.4: 405410.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Williams, A., Mackie, D. M., and Rosselli, F.. 1995. Reactions to Anglo- and Hispanic-American-accented speakers: Affect, identity, persuasion, and the English-only controversy. Language and Communication 15.2: 107120.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Coupland, N., Henwood, K., Harriman, J., and Coupland, J.. 1990. The social meaning of RP: An intergenerational perspective. In Ramsaran, S., ed. Studies in the Pronunciation of English: A Commemorative Volume in Honour of A. C. Gimson. London: Routledge, 191211.Google Scholar
Gillham, B. 2008. Developing a Questionnaire. 2nd ed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. 2012. The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Girard, F., Floccia, C., and Goslin, J.. 2008. Perception and awareness of accents in young children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 26.3: 409433.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L.. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Glaser, J. and Banaji, M. R.. 1999. When fair is foul and foul is fair: Reverse priming in automatic evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77.4: 669687.Google Scholar
Glashouwer, K. A., Smulders, F. T. Y., De Jong, P. J., Roefs, A., and Wiers, R. W. H. J.. 2013. Measuring automatic associations: Validation of algorithms for the Implicit Association Test (IAT) in a laboratory setting. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 44.1: 105113.Google Scholar
Gluszek, A. and Dovidio, J. F.. 2010. The way they speak: A social psychological perspective on the stigma of nonnative accents in communication. Personality and Social Psychology Review 14.2: 214237.Google Scholar
Goatley-Soan, S. and Baldwin, J. R.. 2018. Words apart: A study of attitudes toward varieties of South African English accents in a United States employment scenario. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 37.6: 692705.Google Scholar
Godden, D. R. and Baddeley, A. D.. 1975. Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology 66.3: 325331.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., Pisoni, D. B., and Marcario, J. K.. 1992. Form-based priming in spoken word recognition: The roles of competition and bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18.6: 12111238.Google Scholar
Gooskens, C., Hilton, N. H., and Schüppert, A.. 2016. Is Swedish more beautiful than Danish? A matched-guise investigation. Nooit Het Noorden Kwijt, 165–182.Google Scholar
Gosling, S. D. and Mason, W.. 2015. Internet research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology 66: 877902.Google Scholar
Gottsched, J. C. 1762. Vollständigere und Neuerläuterte Deutsche Sprachkunst. Nach den Mustern der besten Schriftsteller des vorigen und itzigen Jahrhunderts abgefasset, und bei dieser fünften Auflage merklich verbessert. Leipzig: Bernhard Christoph Breitkopf und Sohn.Google Scholar
Gould, P. and White, R.. 1986. Mental Maps. 2nd ed. Boston: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Green, E. M. 2014. The nature of signs: Nepal’s deaf society, local sign and the production of communicative sociality. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, T. L. 1998. The Handbook for Focus Group Research. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Greene, J. C. 2008. Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2.1: 722.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. and Banaji, M. R.. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review 102.1: 427.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G, Draine, C., and Abrams, R. L.. 1996. Three cognitive markers of unconscious semantic activation. Science 273.5282: 16991702.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., and Schwartz, J. L. K.. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74.6: 14641480.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., and Banaji, M. R.. 2003. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Attitudes and Social Cognition 85.2: 197216.Google Scholar
Gregg, A. P. and Klymowsky, J.. 2013. The Implicit Association Test in market research: Potentials and pitfalls. Psychology and Marketing 30.7: 588601.Google Scholar
Grieve, J., Nini, A., and Guo, D.. 2018 Mapping lexical innovation on American social media. Journal of English Linguistics 46.4: 293319.Google Scholar
Grieve, J., Montgomery, C., Nini, A., Murakami, A., and Guo, D.. 2019. Mapping lexical dialect variation in British English using Twitter. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2: 11.Google Scholar
Griffin, E. A. 2009. A First Look at Communication Theory. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Griffin, G. 2013. Discourse analysis. In Griffin, G., ed. Research Methods for English Studies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 93112.Google Scholar
Grillo, R. D. 1989. Dominant Languages: Languages and Hierarchy in Britain and France. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S. 2013. Attitude measurements in the Low Countries. In Hinskens, F. L. M. P. and Taeldeman, J., eds. Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation: Dutch. Berlin: de Gruyter, 568602.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S. and Kristiansen, T.. 2013. On the need to access deep evaluations when searching for the motor of standard language change. In Kristiansen, T. and Grondelaers, S., eds. Language (De)standardisations in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies. Oslo: Novus, 952.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., van Hout, R., and Steegs, M.. 2010. Evaluating regional accent variation in Standard Dutch. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29.1: 101116.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D., Lybaert, C., and van Gent, P.. 2020. Getting a (big) data-based grip on ideological change: Evidence from Belgian Dutch. Journal of Linguistic Geography 8.1: 4965.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, M. 1999. Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. 3rd ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Gubrium, J. F., Holstein, J. A., Marvasti, A. B., and McKinney, K. D.. 2012. The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. 2015. Interactional sociolinguistics. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., and Schiffrin, D., eds. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 309323.Google Scholar
Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., Loureiro-Rodríguez, V., Acar, E. F., and Vélez Avilés, J.. 2019. Attitudes in progress: Puerto Rican youth’s opinions on monolingual and code-switched language varieties. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 40.4: 304321.Google Scholar
Haarmann, H. 1990. Language planning in the light of a general theory of language: A methodological framework. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 86: 103126.Google Scholar
Haddock, G. and Zanna, M. P.. 1998. On the use of open-ended measures to assess attitudinal components. British Journal of Social Psychology 37.2: 129149.Google Scholar
Hadley, L. V., Fisher, N. K., and Pickering, M. J.. 2020. Listeners are better at predicting speakers similar to themselves. Acta Psychologica 208: 103094.Google Scholar
Harwood, J., Giles, H., and Bourhis, R. Y.. 1994. The genesis of vitality theory: Historical patterns and discoursal dimensions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 108: 167206.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, D. 2019. Sociolinguistic effects on loanword phonology: Topic in speech and cultural image. Journal for the Association for Laboratory Phonology: 10.1: 11.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1966. Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist 68.4: 922935.Google Scholar
Haugen, R. 2004. Språk og språkhaldningar hjå ungdomar i Sogndal. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Havinga, A. D. 2018. Invisibilising Austrian German: On the Effect of Linguistic Prescriptions and Educational Reforms on Writing Practices in 18th-Century Austria. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Havinga, A. D. 2019. The role of eighteenth-century newspapers in the disappearance of Upper German variants in Austria. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 5.1: 20170015.Google Scholar
Hawkey, J. 2018. Language Attitudes and Minority Rights: The Case of Catalan in France. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hawkey, J. 2020. Language attitudes as predictors of morphosyntactic variation: Evidence from Catalan speakers in Southern France. Journal of Sociolinguistics 24.1: 1634.Google Scholar
Hawkey, J. and Langer, N.. 2016. Language policy in the long nineteenth century: Catalonia and Schleswig. In Russi, C., ed. Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, 81107.Google Scholar
Hawkey, J. and Mooney, D.. 2021. The ideological construction of legitimacy for pluricentric standards: Occitan and Catalan in France. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 42.9: 854868.Google Scholar
Hay, J. and Drager, K.. 2010. Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48.4: 865892.Google Scholar
Hay, J., Nolan, A., and Drager, K.. 2006. From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. The Linguistic Review 23.3: 351379.Google Scholar
Hebdige, D. 1984. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Heggen, K. and Guillemin, M.. 2012. Protecting participants’ confidentiality using a situated research ethics approach. In Gubrium, J. F., Holstein, J. A., Marvasti, A. B., and McKinney, K. D., eds. The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 465476.Google Scholar
Heller, M. 2011. Paths to Post-Nationalism: A Critical Ethnography of Language and Identity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heller, M., Pietikäinen, S., and Pujolar, J.. 2018. Critical Sociolinguistic Methods: Studying Language Issues that Matter. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hendriks, B., van Meurs, F., and Reimer, A.-K.. 2018. The evaluation of lecturers’ nonnative-accented English: Dutch and German students’ evaluations of different degrees of Dutch-accented and German-accented English of lecturers in higher education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 34: 2845.Google Scholar
Hennink, M. 2017. Cross-cultural focus group discussions. In Barbour, R. S. and Morgan, D. L., eds. A New Era in Focus Group Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 5982.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A.. 2010. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466: 29.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 2004. Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analysing data. In Silverman, D., ed. Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. 2nd ed. London: SAGE. 222245.Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds. 2012. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. 2001. Computer-mediated discourse. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., and Hamilton, H., eds. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 612634.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. 2003. Media and language change: Introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4.1: 117.Google Scholar
Hesson, A. M. and Pichler, H.. 2018. Breaking down barriers in pediatric mental health consultations: Understanding patients’ use of I DON’T KNOW. Health Communication 33.7: 867876.Google Scholar
van Heugten, M., Krieger, D. R., and Johnson, E. K.. 2015. The developmental trajectory of toddlers’ comprehension of unfamiliar regional accents. Language Learning and Development 11.1: 4165.Google Scholar
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., and Willis, H.. 2002. Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology 53: 575604.Google Scholar
Hickey, R. 2010. Attitudes and concerns in eighteenth-century English. In Hickey, R., ed. Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 120.Google Scholar
Hilgard, E. R. 1980. The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection, and conation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 16.2: 107117.Google Scholar
Hill, J. C. 2012. Language Attitudes in the American Deaf Community. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, J. C. 2015a. Language attitudes in deaf communities. In Schembri, A. C. and Lucas, C., eds. Sociolinguistics and Deaf Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 146174.Google Scholar
Hill, J. C. 2015b. Data collection in sociolinguistics. In Orfanidou, E., Woll, B., and Morgan, G., eds. Research Methods in Sign Language Studies: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 193205.Google Scholar
Hilton, N. H. and Gooskens, C.. 2013. Language policies and attitudes towards Frisian in the Netherlands. In Gooskens, C. and van Bezooijen, R., eds. Phonetics in Europe: Perception and Production. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 139157.Google Scholar
Hilton, N. H., Rosseel, L., Smidt, E. L., and Coler, M.. 2016. Using the IAT to understand the relationship between variant usage patterns and social meaning. Presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 21, Murcia, 15–18 June.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. A. 1995. The inheritability of identity: Children’s understanding of the cultural biology of race. Child Development 66.5: 14181437.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. A. 1996. Race in the Making: Cognition, Culture, and the Child’s Construction of Human Kinds. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. A. and Gelman, S. A.. 1997. What young children think about the relationship between language variation and social difference. Cognitive Development 12.2: 213238.Google Scholar
Hoare, R. 2001. An integrative approach to language attitudes and identity in Brittany. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5.1: 7384.Google Scholar
Hochgesang, J. 2019. ‘Tyranny of Glossing’ revisited: Reconsidering representational practices of signed languages via best practices of data citation. Presented at Doing Reproducible and Rigorous Science with Deaf Children, Deaf Communities, and Sign Languages: Challenges and Opportunities, Berlin, 23 September.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A. 1995. Social identity theory. In Manstead, A. S. R. and Hewstone, M., eds. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell, 555560.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A., Joyce, N., and Abrams, D.. 1984. Diglossia in Switzerland? A social identity analysis of speaker evaluations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 3.3: 185196.Google Scholar
Holland, R. W., Hendriks, M., and Aarts, H.. 2005. Smells like clean spirit. Psychological Science 16.9: 689693.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. 2007. Humour and the construction of Maori leadership at work. Leadership 3.1: 527.Google Scholar
Holmes, P., Fay, R., Andrews, J., and Attia, M.. 2013. Researching multilingually: New theoretical and methodological directions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 23.3: 285299.Google Scholar
Holmes, P., Fay, R., Andrews, J., and Attia, M.. 2016. How to research multilingually: Possibilities and complexities. In Hua, Z., ed. Research Methods in Intercultural Communication: A Practical Guide. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 88102.Google Scholar
Horner, K. and Bellamy, J.. 2016. Beyond the micro–macro interface in language and identity research. In Preece, S., ed. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity. London: Routledge, 320334.Google Scholar
Hornsby, M. 2015. Revitalizing Minority Languages: New Speakers of Breton, Yiddish and Lemko. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hou, L. Y.-S. 2017. Negotiating language practices and language ideologies in fieldwork: A reflexive meta-documentation. In Kusters, A., De Meulder, M., and O’Brien, D., eds. Innovations in Deaf Studies: The Role of Deaf Scholars. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 339359.Google Scholar
Hou, L. Y.-S. and Kusters, A.. 2020. Signed languages. In Tusting, K., ed. The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography. London: Routledge, 340355.Google Scholar
Houben, K. and Wiers, R. W.. 2006. Assessing implicit alcohol associations with the Implicit Association Test: Fact or artifact? Addictive Behaviors 31.8: 13461362.Google Scholar
Howard, L. H., Carrazza, C., and Woodward, A. L.. 2014. Neighborhood linguistic diversity predicts infants’ social learning. Cognition 133.2: 474479.Google Scholar
Hsieh, H.-F. and Shannon, S. E.. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15.9: 12771288.Google Scholar
Hundt, M. 1992. Einstellungen gegenüber dialektal gefärbter Standardsprache. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Hundt, M. 2019. ‘My language, my identity’: Negotiating language use and attitudes in the New Zealand Fiji Indian diaspora. Asian Englishes 2.1: 221.Google Scholar
Hundt, M., Zipp, L., and Huber, A.. 2015. Attitudes in Fiji towards varieties of English. World Englishes 34.4: 688707.Google Scholar
Hüning, M., Vogl, U., and Moliner, O., eds. 2012. Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R.. 1998. Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Huygens, I. and Vaughan, G. M.. 1983. Language attitudes, ethnicity and social class in New Zealand. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 4.2–3: 207223.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hyrksted, I. and Kalaja, P.. 1998. Attitudes towards English and its functions in Finland: A discourse-analytic study. World Englishes 17.3: 345357.Google Scholar
Ianos, M.-A., Huguet, Á., Janés, J., and Lapresta, C.. 2017. Can language attitudes be improved? A longitudinal study of immigrant students in Catalonia (Spain). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 20.3: 331345.Google Scholar
IDEA. 2021. International Dialects of English Archive. https://www.dialectsarchive.com.Google Scholar
IDESCAT (Institut d’Estadística de Catalunya). 2013. Població de 15 anys i més segons llengua inicial, d’identificació i habitual, 2013. https://www.idescat.cat/indicadors/?id=anuals&n=10364&t=201300.Google Scholar
Iglesias-Álvarez, A. and Ramallo, F.. 2003. Language as a diacritical in terms of cultural and resistance identities in Galicia. Estudios de Sociolingüística 4.1: 255287.Google Scholar
Ihalainen, O. 1994. The dialects of England since 1776. In Burchfield, R., ed. English in Britain and Overseas: Origins and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197274.Google Scholar
Ihemere, K. U. 2006. An integrated approach to the study of language attitudes and change in Nigeria: The case of the Ikwerre of Port Harcourt City. In Arasayin, O. F. and Pemberton, M. A., eds. Selected Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 194207. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/acal/36/paper1424.pdf.Google Scholar
Imamura, M., Zhang, Y. B., and Harwood, J.. 2011. Japanese sojourners’ attitudes toward Americans: Exploring the influences of communication accommodation, linguistic competence, and relational solidarity in intergroup contact. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 21.1: 115132.Google Scholar
Imuta, K. and Spence, J. L.. 2020. Developments in the social meaning underlying accent- and dialect-based social preferences. Child Development Perspectives 14.3: 135141.Google Scholar
Incera, S. and McLennan, C. T.. 2016. Mouse tracking reveals that bilinguals behave like experts. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19.3: 610620.Google Scholar
[INSEE] Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques. 2015. Recensement de la population. Populations légales en vigueur à compter du 1er janvier 2016. Pyrénées-Orientales. Paris: Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances.Google Scholar
Instructie voor den Agent van Nationale Opvoeding. 1798. The Hague: S.n.Google Scholar
[ITU] International Telecommunication Union. 2020. Statistics. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx.Google Scholar
Ioannidou, E., Karatsareas, P., Lytra, V., and Tsiplakou, S.. 2020. Why and how to integrate non-standard linguistic varieties into education: Cypriot Greek in Cyprus and the UK. Languages, Society and Policy. 10.17863/CAM.54137.Google Scholar
Jackson, K. M. and Trochim, W. M. K.. 2002. Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods 5.4: 307336.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A., ed. 2000. Non-standard Orthography. Special issue of Journal of Sociolinguistics 4.4.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. 2007. Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In Jaffe, A., ed. Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 328.Google Scholar
Janda, R. D. and Joseph, B. D.. 2003. On language, change, and language change – or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D., eds. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1180.Google Scholar
Jaswal, V. K. and Neely, L. A.. 2006. Adults don’t always know best: Preschoolers use past reliability over age when learning new words. Psychological Science 17.9: 757758.Google Scholar
Jeon, L. 2013. Drawing boundaries and revealing language attitudes: Mapping perceptions of dialects in Korea. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of North Texas.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3.1: 359383.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. A. and Wichern, D. W.. 2008. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. B. and Onwuegbuzie, A. J.. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33.7: 1426.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Turner, L. A.. 2007. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1.2: 112133.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. 2001. Who’s misunderstanding whom? (Socio)linguistics, public debate and the media. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5.4: 591610.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. and Ensslin, A., eds. 2007. Language in the Media: Representations, Identities, Ideologies. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. and Milani, T. M., eds. 2010. Language Ideologies and Media Discourse: Texts, Practices, Policies. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. 2007. Linking identity and dialect through stancetaking. In Englebretson, R., ed. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 4968.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. and Kiesling, S. F.. 2008. Indexicality and experience: Exploring the meaning of /aw/-monophthongization in Pittsburgh. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12.1: 533.Google Scholar
Jones, T. 2015. Toward a description of African American Vernacular English dialect regions using ‘Black Twitter’. American Speech 90.4: 403440.Google Scholar
Jones, Z., Yan, Q., Wagner, L., and Clopper, C. G.. 2017. The development of dialect classification across the lifespan. Journal of Phonetics 60: 2037.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, M. and Phillips, L.. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. E. 1987. Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. E., Rutten, G., and Vosters, R.. 2020. Dialect, language, nation: 50 years on. Language Policy 19: 161182.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. and Aslin, R. N.. 1995. Infants’ detection of the sound patterns of words in fluent speech. Cognitive Psychology 29.1: 123.Google Scholar
Kalaja, P. and Pitkänen-Huhta, A.. 2018. ALR special issue: Visual methods in Applied Language Studies. Applied Linguistics Review 9.2–3: 157176.Google Scholar
Kannapell, B. 1985. Language choice reflects identity choice: A sociolinguistic study of deaf college students. Unpublished Dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Kannapell, B. 1989. An examination of deaf college students’ attitudes toward ASL and English. In Lucas, C., ed. The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community. San Diego: Academic Press, 191210.Google Scholar
Karatsareas, P. 2018. Attitudes towards Cypriot Greek and Standard Modern Greek in London’s Greek Cypriot community. International Journal of Bilingualism 22.4: 412428.Google Scholar
Karatsareas, P. 2019. Cypriot Greek as a heritage and community language in London: (Socio)linguistic aspects of a non-standardised variety in a diasporic context. In Karla, G., Manolessou, I., and Pantelidis, N., eds. Λέξεις: Τιμητικός Τόμος για την Χριστίνα Μπασέα-Μπεζαντάκου [Words: Festschrift for Christina Bassea-Bezantakou]. Athens: Kardamitsa, 143167.Google Scholar
Karatsareas, P. 2021. From village talk to slang: The re-enregisterment of a non-standardised variety in an urban diaspora. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 42.9: 827839.Google Scholar
Karpinski, A. and Steinman, R. B.. 2006. The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91.1: 1632.Google Scholar
Kearney, M. W. 2019. rtweet: Collecting and analyzing Twitter data. Journal of Open Source Software 4.42: 1829. https://docs.ropensci.org/rtweet/.Google Scholar
Kelle, U. 1997. Theory building in qualitative research and computer programmes for the management of textual data. Sociological Research Online 2.2. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/2/1.html.Google Scholar
Kemler Nelson, D. G., Jusczyk, P. W., Mandel, D. R., Myers, J., Turk, A., and Gerken, L.. 1995. The head-turn preference procedure for testing auditory perception. Infant Behavior and Development 18.1: 111116.Google Scholar
Kerkhoff, A., van Hout, R., and Vallen, T.. 1988. Attitudes of primary school children and second language proficiency. In van Hout, R. and Knops, U, eds. Language Attitudes in the Dutch Language Area. Dordrecht: De Gruyter Mouton, 121142.Google Scholar
Khoros. 2020. The 2020 social media demographics guide. https://khoros.com/resources/social-media-demographics-guide.Google Scholar
Kim, S. K. and Sumner, M.. 2017. Beyond lexical meaning: The effect of emotional prosody on spoken word recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142.1: EL49.Google Scholar
King, R. and Wicks, J.. 2009. ‘Aren’t we proud of our language?’ Authenticity, commodification, and the Nissan Bonavista television commercial. Journal of English Linguistics 37.3: 262283.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D. 2020. How You Say It: Why You Talk the Way You Do – And What It Says About You. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D. 2021. Language as a social cue. Annual Review of Psychology 72: 241264.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D. and Dautel, J. B.. 2012. Children’s essentialist reasoning about language and race. Developmental Science 15.1: 131138.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D. and DeJesus, J. M.. 2013a. Children’s sociolinguistic evaluations of nice foreigners and mean Americans. Developmental Psychology 49.4: 655664.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D. and DeJesus, J. M.. 2013b. Northern = smart and Southern = nice: The development of accent attitudes in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 66.6: 11461158.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D., Corriveau, K. H., and Harris, P. L.. 2011. Children’s selective trust in native-accented speakers. Developmental Science 14.1: 106111.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D., Dupoux, E., and Spelke, E. S.. 2007. The native language of social cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104.30: 1257712580.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D., Dupoux, E., and Spelke, E. S.. 2012b. ‘Native’ objects and collaborators: Infants’ object choices and acts of giving reflect favor for native over foreign speakers. Journal of Cognition and Development 13.1: 6781.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D., Shutts, K., and Correll, J.. 2010. Priorities in social categories. European Journal of Social Psychology 40.4: 581592.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D., Shutts, K., and Spelke, E. S.. 2012a. Language-based social preferences among children in South Africa. Language Learning and Development 8.3: 215232.Google Scholar
Kinzler, K. D., Shutts, K., DeJesus, J., and Spelke, E. S.. 2009. Accent trumps race in guiding children’s social preferences. Social Cognition 27.4: 623634.Google Scholar
Kircher, R. 2012. How pluricentric is the French language? An investigation of attitudes towards Quebec French compared to European French. Journal of French Language Studies 22.3: 345370.Google Scholar
Kircher, R. 2014a. Thirty years after Bill 101: A contemporary perspective on attitudes towards English and French in Montreal. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 17.1: 2050.Google Scholar
Kircher, R. 2014b. Quebec’s shift from ethnic to civic national identity: Implications for language attitudes amongst immigrants in Montreal. In Evans, D., ed. Language and Identity: Discourse in the World. London: Bloomsbury, 5580.Google Scholar
Kircher, R. 2016a. Language attitudes among adolescents in Montreal: Potential lessons for language planning in Quebec. Nottingham French Studies 55.2: 239259.Google Scholar
Kircher, R. 2016b. Montreal’s multilingual migrants: Social identities and language attitudes after the proposition of the Quebec Charter of Values. In Regan, V., Diskin, C., and Martyn, J., eds. Language, Identity and Migration: Voices from Transnational Speakers and Communities. Bern: Peter Lang, 217247.Google Scholar
Kircher, R. 2016c. The matched-guise technique. In Hua, Z., ed. Research Methods in Intercultural Communication: A Practical Guide. Malden: Wiley, 196211.Google Scholar
Kircher, R. 2022. Intergenerational language transmission in Quebec: Patterns and predictors in the light of provincial language planning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25.2: 418435.Google Scholar
Kircher, R. and Fox, S.. 2019. Attitudes towards Multicultural London English: Implications for attitude theory and language planning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 40.10: 847864.Google Scholar
Kircher, R. and Fox, S.. 2021. Multicultural London English and its speakers: A corpus-informed discourse study of standard language ideology and social stereotypes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 42.9: 892910.Google Scholar
Kircher, R., Quirk, E., Brouillard, M., Ahooja, A., Ballinger, S., Polka, L., and Byers-Heinlein, K.. 2022. Quebec-based parents’ attitudes towards childhood multilingualism: Evaluative dimensions and potential predictors. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 10.1177/0261927X221078853.Google Scholar
Kisch, S. 2012. Demarcating generations of signers in the dynamic sociolinguistic landscape of a shared sign language: The case of the Al-Sayyid Bedouin. In Zeshan, U. and de Vos, C., eds. Sign Languages in Village Communities: Anthropological and Linguistic Insights. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer/Ishara Press, 87126.Google Scholar
Kisilevsky, B. S. and Hains, S. M. J.. 2011. Onset and maturation of fetal heart rate response to the mother’s voice over late gestation. Developmental Science 14.2: 214223.Google Scholar
Kisilevsky, B. S., Hains, S. M. J., Brown, C. A., Lee, C. T., Cowperthwaite, B., Stutzman, S. S., Swansburg, M. L., Lee, K., Xie, X., Huang, H., Ye, H.-H., Zhang, K., and Wang, Z.. 2009. Fetal sensitivity to properties of maternal speech and language. Infant Behavior and Development 32.1: 5971.Google Scholar
Kitamura, C., Panneton, R., and Best, C. T.. 2013. The development of language constancy: Attention to native versus nonnative accents. Child Development 84.5: 16861700.Google Scholar
Kitchin, R. and McArdle, G.. 2016. What makes Big Data, Big Data? Exploring the ontological characteristics of 26 datasets. Big Data and Society. 10.1177/2053951716631130.Google Scholar
Klauer, K. C., Teige-Mocigemba, S., and Spruyt, A.. 2009. Contrast effects in spontaneous evaluations: A psychophysical account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96.2: 265287.Google Scholar
Kleinschmidt, D. F., Weatherholtz, K., and Jaeger, T. F.. 2018. Sociolinguistic perception as inference under uncertainty. Topics in Cognitive Science 10.4: 818834.Google Scholar
Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W.. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. In Deutschmann, O. and Flasche, H., eds. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1543.Google Scholar
Koenig, M. A. and Jaswal, V. K.. 2011. Characterizing children’s expectations about expertise and incompetence: Halo or pitchfork effects? Child Development 82.5: 16341647.Google Scholar
Kolbe, R. H. and Burnett, M. S.. 1991. Content-analysis research: An examination of applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research 18.2: 243250.Google Scholar
König, K. 2014. Spracheinstellungen und Identitätskonstruktion. Eine gesprächsanalytische Untersuchung sprachbiographischer Interviews mit Deutsch-Vietnamesen. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
König, K. 2019. Speaking with or without an accent: Language ideologies and the ‘problem’ of linguistic super-mobility. In Horner, K. and Dailey-O’Cain, J., eds. Multilingualism, (im)mobilities and spaces of belonging. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters, 141172.Google Scholar
Kouider, S. and Dehaene, S.. 2007. Levels of processing during non-conscious perception: A critical review of visual masking. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 362.1481: 857875.Google Scholar
Kouider, S. and Dupoux, E.. 2005. Subliminal speech priming. Psychological Science 16.8: 617625.Google Scholar
Krausneker, V. 2005. Viele Blumen schreibt man ‘Blümer’. Soziolinguistische Aspekte des bilingualen Wiener Grundschul-Modells mit Österreichischer Gebärdensprache und Deutsch. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Krausneker, V. 2015. Ideologies and attitudes toward sign languages: An approximation. Sign Language Studies 15.4: 411431.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. 2018. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, G. and Dirven, R., eds. 2008. Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. 1991. Sproglige normidealer på Næstvedegnen. Kvantitative sprogholdningsstudier. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. 1997. Language attitudes in a Danish cinema. In Coupland, N. and Jaworski, A., eds. Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook. London: Macmillan Press, 291305.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. 1998. The role of standard ideology in the disappearance of the traditional Danish dialects. Folia Linguistica XXXII.1–2: 115129.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. 2003. Language attitudes and language politics in Denmark. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 159: 5771.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. 2009. The macro-level social meanings of late-modern Danish accents. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41.1: 167192.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. 2010a. Investigating language in space: Experimental techniques. In Auer, P. and Schmidt, J. E., eds. Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation. Vol. 1: Theories and Methods. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 528549.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. 2010b. Conscious and subconscious attitudes towards English influence in the Nordic countries: Evidence for two levels of language ideology. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 204: 5995.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. 2011. Attitudes, ideology and awareness. In Wodak, R., Johnston, B., and Kerswill, P., eds. The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics. London: SAGE, 265278.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. 2015. The primary relevance of subconsciously offered attitudes: Focusing the language ideological aspect of sociolinguistic change. In Prikhodkine, A. and Preston, D. R., eds. Responses to Language Varieties: Variability, Processes and Outcomes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 87116.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. and Giles, H.. 1992. Compliance-gaining as a function of accent: Public requests in varieties of Danish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2.1: 1735.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. and Jørgensen, J.. 2005. Subjective factors in dialect convergence and divergence. In Auer, P., Hinskens, F., and Kerswill, P., eds. Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 287302.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T., Garrett, P., and Coupland, N.. 2005. Introducing subjectivities in language. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 37.1: 935.Google Scholar
Krogull, A. 2018. Policy versus Practice. Language Variation and Change in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Krogull, A., Rutten, G., and van der Wal, M.. 2017. Relativisation in Dutch diaries, private letters and newspapers (1770–1840). A genre-specific national language? In Säily, T., Nurmi, A., Palander-Collin, M., and Auer, A., eds. Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 157186.Google Scholar
Kroskrity, P. V. 2018. Language ideologies and language attitudes. Oxford Bibliographies. 10.1093/obo/9780199772810-0122.Google Scholar
Kroskrity, P. V. 2000. Regimenting languages: Language ideological perspectives. In Kroskrity, P. V., ed. Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities and Identities. Oxford: James Curry, 134.Google Scholar
Krosnick, J. A. 2018. Improving question design to maximize reliability and validity. In Vannette, D. L. and Krosnick, J. A., eds. The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 95101.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. A. 1998. Developing Questions for focus groups. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. A. and Casey, M. A.. 2009. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Krug, M. and Sell, K.. 2013. Designing and conducting interviews and questionnaires. In Krug, M. and Schlüter, J., eds. Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 6998.Google Scholar
Kühne, S. 2019. Collecting and analyzing Twitter data using R. R-bloggers. https://www.r-bloggers.com/collecting-and-analyzing-twitter-data-using-r/.Google Scholar
Kuipers-Zandberg, H. and Kircher, R.. 2020. The objective and subjective ethnolinguistic vitality of West Frisian: Promotion and perception of a minority language in the Netherlands. Sustainable Multilingualism 17: 125.Google Scholar
Kusters, A. 2014. Language ideologies in the shared signing community of Adamorobe. Language in Society 43.2: 139158.Google Scholar
Kusters, A. 2015. Ishaare: Gestures and Signs in Mumbai. Film produced and directed by Annelies Kusters, edited by VisualBox, 80 minutes. https://vimeo.com/142245339.Google Scholar
Kusters, A. 2018. Researching language ideologies and attitudes about International Sign. https://mobiledeaf.org.uk/researching-language-ideologies-and-attitudes-about-international-sign/.Google Scholar
Kusters, A. 2019. One village, two sign languages: Qualia, intergenerational relationships and the language ideological assemblage in Adamorobe, Ghana. Linguistic Anthropology 30.1: 4867.Google Scholar
Kusters, A. 2020. The tipping point: On the use of signs from American Sign Language in International Sign. Language and Communication, 75: 5168.Google Scholar
Kusters, A. and De Meulder, M.. 2019. Language portraits: Investigating embodied multilingual and multimodal repertoires. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 20.3: 10.Google Scholar
Kusters, A. and Sahasrabudhe, S.. 2018. Language ideologies on the difference between gesture and sign. Language and Communication 60: 4463.Google Scholar
Kusters, A., Sahasrabudhe, S., and Gopalakrishnan, A.. 2016. A reflexive report on filmmaking within a linguistic ethnography with deaf and hearing people in Mumbai. MMG Working Paper, 16-04.Google Scholar
Kusters, A., Green, E. M., Moriarty, E., and Snoddon, K.. 2020a. Sign language ideologies: Practices and politics. In Kusters, A., Green, E. M., Moriarty, E., and Snoddon, K., eds. Sign Language Ideologies in Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter/Ishara Press, 322.Google Scholar
Kusters, A., Green, E. M., Moriarty, E., and Snoddon, K., eds. 2020b. Sign Language Ideologies in Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter/Ishara Press.Google Scholar
Kutlu, E. and R. Kircher, R. 2021. A corpus-assisted discourse study of attitudes toward Spanish as a heritage language in Florida. Languages 6.1: 38.Google Scholar
Labelle, M. and Salée, D.. 2001. Immigrant and minority representations of citizenship in Quebec. In Aleinikoff, T. A. and Klusmeyer, D., eds. Citizenship Today. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 279315.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19.3: 273309.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1969. Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45.4: 715762.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972a. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972b. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1982. Building on empirical foundations. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y., eds. Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1792.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1986. The social stratification of (r) in New York City department stores. In Allen, H. B. and Linn, M. D., eds. Dialect and Language Variation. Orlando: Academic Press, 304329.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 2. Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladd, F. C. 1970. Black youths view their environment. Environment and Behaviour 2.2: 7499.Google Scholar
Ladd, P. 2003. Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ladegaard, H. J. 2000. Language attitudes and sociolinguistic behaviour: Exploring attitude-behaviour relations in language. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4.2: 214233.Google Scholar
Lamarre, P. 2013. Catching ‘Montréal on the Move’ and challenging the discourse of unilingualism in Québec. Anthropologica 55.1: 4156.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E. 1967. A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23.2: 91109.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E., Anisfeld, M., and Yeni-Komshian, G.. 1965. Evaluation reactions of Jewish and Arab adolescents to dialect and language variations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2.1: 8490.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E., Frankel, H., and Tucker, G. R.. 1966. Judging personality through speech: A French-Canadian example. Journal of Communication 16.4: 305321.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., and Fillenbaum, S.. 1960. Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60.1: 4451.Google Scholar
Lameli, A., Purschke, C., and Kehrein, R.. 2008. Stimulus und Kognition: Zur Aktivierung mentaler Raumbilder. Linguistik Online 35.3/08: 5586.Google Scholar
Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., and Greenwald, A. G.. 2007. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far) about the method. In Wittenbrink, B. and Schwarz, N., eds. Implicit Measures of Attitudes. New York: Guilford, 59102.Google Scholar
Laney, D. 2001. 3D data management: Controlling data volume, velocity and variety. Meta Group, Application Delivery Strategies 949. http://blogs.gartner.com/doug-laney/files/2012/01/ad949-3D-Data-Management-Controlling-Data-Volume-Velocity-and-Variety.pdf.Google Scholar
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., and Cuthbert, B. N.. 2008. International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Affective Ratings of Pictures and Instruction Manual. Technical Report A-8. Gainesville: University of Florida.Google Scholar
Langer, N. and Nesse, A.. 2012. Linguistic purism. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 607625.Google Scholar
Langer, N. and Havinga, A. D.. 2015. Invisible languages in historical sociolinguistics: A conceptual outline, with examples from the German-Danish Borderlands. In Havinga, A. D. and Langer, N., eds. Invisible Languages in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Peter Lang, 134.Google Scholar
Lapadat, J. C. 2000. Problematizing transcription: purpose, paradigm and quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3.3: 203219.Google Scholar
Lavine, H., Thomsen, C. J., Zanna, M. P., and Borgida, E.. 1998. On the primacy of affect in the determination of attitudes and behavior: The moderating role of affective-cognitive ambivalence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 34.4: 398421.Google Scholar
Lawrence, D. 2015. Phonetic variation as a cue to regional identity: An experimental approach. York Papers in Linguistics 2: 4263.Google Scholar
Lawson, S. and Sachdev, I.. 2000. Codeswitching in Tunisia: Attitudinal and behavioural dimensions. Journal of Pragmatics 32.9: 13431361.Google Scholar
Lazaraton, A. 2005. Quantitative research methods. In Hinkel, E., ed. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 209224.Google Scholar
Lazaraton, A. 2013. Ethics in qualitative research. In Chapelle, C. A., ed. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley Online Library. 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1410.Google Scholar
Le, T. P. 2018. Vocal expression in schizophrenia: Examining the role of vocal accommodation in clinical ratings of speech. Unpublished MA thesis, Louisiana State University. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/4383.Google Scholar
Lee, R. 2015. Implicit associations with Welsh in two educational contexts. York Papers in Linguistics 2.14: 81105.Google Scholar
Lee, R. R. 1971. Dialect perception: A critical review and re-evaluation. Quarterly Journal of Speech 57.4: 410417.Google Scholar
Lee, Y., Gordon Danner, S., Parrell, B., Lee, S., Goldstein, L., and Byrd, D.. 2018. Articulatory, acoustic, and prosodic accommodation in a cooperative maze navigation task. PLoS ONE 13.8: e0201444.Google Scholar
LeFave, N. 2016. Language attitudes of Twitter users toward New York City English. Presented at Digital Humanities, Kraków, 11–16 July.Google Scholar
Lehnert, T. E., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., and Hörstermann, T.. 2018. Language and nationality attitudes as distinct factors that influence speaker evaluations: Explicit versus implicit attitudes in Luxembourg. Language and Communication 61: 5870.Google Scholar
Leimgruber, J. R. E. 2019. Language Planning and Policy in Quebec: A Comparative Perspective with Views from Wales and Singapore. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Leinonen, T. 2016. Attitudes, salience, and accommodation-quantity in Finland-Swedish. Presented at Experimental Approaches to Perception and Production 3, Vienna, 21–24 September.Google Scholar
Lev-Ari, S. and Keysar, B.. 2010. Why don’t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46.6: 10931096.Google Scholar
Levine, M. V. 1990. The Reconquest of Montreal: Language Policy and Social Change in a Bilingual City. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levon, E. 2014. Categories, stereotypes, and the linguistic perception of sexuality. Language in Society 43.5: 539566.Google Scholar
Levon, E. 2018. Organizing and processing your data: The nuts and bolts of quantitative analyses. In Litosseliti, L., ed. Research Methods in Linguistics. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury, 140166.Google Scholar
Levon, E., Sharma, D., Ye, Y., Cardoso, A., and Watt, D.. 2019. Real-time evaluations of accent and professional competence. Presented at Experimental Approaches to Perception and Production, Münster, 26–28 September. https://accentbiasbritain.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Levon_et_al-exapp-slides_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Lewis, E. G. 1981. Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Liberman, Z., Woodward, A. L., and Kinzler, K. D.. 2017a. Preverbal infants infer third-party social relationships based on language. Cognitive Science 41.S3: 622634.Google Scholar
Liberman, Z., Woodward, A. L., and Kinzler, K. D.. 2017b. The origins of social categorization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 21.7: 556568.Google Scholar
Liberman, Z., Woodward, A. L., Keysar, B., and Kinzler, K. D.. 2017c. Exposure to multiple languages enhances communication skills in infancy. Developmental Science 20.1: e12420.Google Scholar
Liberman, Z., Woodward, A. L., Sullivan, K. R., and Kinzler, K. D.. 2016. Early emerging system for reasoning about the social nature of food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences August 23, 113.34: 94809485.Google Scholar
Liebscher, G. and Dailey-O’Cain, J.. 2009. Language attitudes in interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13.2: 195222.Google Scholar
Liebscher, G. and Dailey-O’Cain, J.. 2017. Contextualizing language attitudes: An interactional perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass 11.9: e12250.Google Scholar
Likert, R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 140: 555.Google Scholar
Lin, Y. 2018. Stylistic variation and social perception in second dialect acquisition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Lindemann, S. 2003. Koreans, Chinese or Indians? Attitudes and ideologies about non- native English speakers in the United States. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7.3: 348364.Google Scholar
Lindemann, S. 2005. Who speaks ‘broken English’? US undergraduates’ perceptions of non- native English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15.2: 187212.Google Scholar
Lindgren, K. P., Neighbors, C., Teachman, B. A., and Wiers, R. W.. 2013. I drink therefore I am: Validating alcohol-related implicit association tests. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 27.1: 113.Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, R. 2012. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Littré, E. 1863–1878. Dictionnaire de la langue française. Hachette: Paris.Google Scholar
Llamas, C. 2007. ‘A place between places’: Language and identities in a border town. Language in Society 36.4: 579604.Google Scholar
Llamas, C. and Watt, D.. 2014. Scottish, English, British? Innovations in attitude measurement. Language and Linguistics Compass 8.11: 610617.Google Scholar
Llamas, C., Watt, D., and MacFarlane, A.. 2016. Estimating the relative sociolinguistic salience of segmental variables in a dialect boundary zone. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1163.Google Scholar
Lodge, R. A. 2014. Jacques-Louis Ménétra and his experience of the langue d’oc. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R., and Vandenbussche, W., eds. Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900. A sociolinguistic and comparative perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 201222.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. 1980. Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology 12.4: 523553.Google Scholar
Long, D. 1999. Geographical perception of Japanese dialect regions. In Long, D. and Preston, D. R., eds. Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177198.Google Scholar
Long, D. and Preston, D. R., eds. 2002. Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, D. and Yim, Y.-C.. 2002. Regional differences in the perception of Korean dialects. In Long, D. and Preston, D. R., eds. Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 249275.Google Scholar
Loudermilk, B. C. 2015. Implicit attitudes and the perception of sociolinguistic variation. In Prikhodkine, A. and Preston, D. R., eds. Responses to Language Varieties: Variability, Processes and Outcomes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137156.Google Scholar
Loureiro-Rodríguez, V., Boggess, M. M., and Goldsmith, A.. 2013. Language attitudes in Galicia: Using the matched-guise test among high school students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34.2: 136153.Google Scholar
Lucas, C. and Valli, C.. 1992. Language Contact in the American Deaf Community. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Luk, G. and Surrain, S.. 2019. The perceptions of bilingualism scales. PsyArXiv, August 3. 10.31234/osf.io/s32zb.Google Scholar
Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P. 2007. Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal 91.4: 564576.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. and Myers, G.. 2004. Focus groups. In Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J. F., and Silverman, D., eds. Qualitative Research Practice. London: SAGE, 6579.Google Scholar
Maegaard, M. 2001. ‘Jeg er da stolt af at jeg er sønderjyde – altså sådan forholdsvis’. Om sprogbrug og sprogholdninger hos sønderjyske unge. Danske Talesprog 2: 77166.Google Scholar
Magué, J.-P., Rossi-Gensane, N., and Halté, P.. 2020. De la segmentation dans les tweets: Signes de ponctuation, connecteurs, émoticônes et émojis. Corpus 20. http://journals.openedition.org/corpus/4619.Google Scholar
Maison, D., Greenwald, A. G., and Bruin, R. H.. 2004. Predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14.4: 405415.Google Scholar
Mann, C. and Stewart, F.. 2000. Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Manning, B., Harpole, A., Harriott, E., Postolowicz, K., and Norton, E.. 2020. Taking language samples home: Feasibility, reliability, and validity of child language samples conducted remotely with video chat versus in-person. PsyArXiv May 4. 10.31234/osf.io/23u8a.Google Scholar
Manstead, A. S. R. and Fisher, A. H.. 2002. Beyond the universality-specificity dichotomy. Cognition and Emotion 16.1: 19.Google Scholar
ManyBabies Consortium. 2020. Quantifying sources of variability in infancy research using the infant-directed speech preference. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 3.1: 2452.Google Scholar
Marie, A. S. 2020. Finding interpreters who can ‘OPEN-THEIR-MIND’: How Deaf teachers select sign language interpreters in Hà Nội, Việt Nam. In Kusters, A., Green, E. M., Moriarty, E., and Snoddon, K., eds. Sign Language Ideologies in Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter/Ishara Press, 129144.Google Scholar
Markel, N. N., Eisler, R. M., and Reese, H. W.. 1967. Judging personality from dialect. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6.1: 3335.Google Scholar
Martin, D. 2015. IAT: Functions to Use with Data from the Implicit Association Test. R package version 0.2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=IAT.Google Scholar
Martin-Jones, M., Blackledge, A., and Creese, A., eds. 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mason, P. R. and Davis, B. H.. 2007. More than the words: Using stance-shift analysis to identify crucial opinions and attitudes in online focus groups. Journal of Advertising Research 47.4: 496506.Google Scholar
Matoré, G. 1968. Histoire des dictionnaires français. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Mattheier, K. J. 2003. German. In Deumert, A. and Vandenbussche, W., eds. Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 211244.Google Scholar
McCaskill, C., Lucas, C., Bayley, R., and Hill, J.. 2011. The Hidden Treasure of Black ASL: Its History and Structure. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
McCullough, E. A., Clopper, C. G., and Wagner, L.. 2019a. Regional dialect perception across the lifespan: Identification and discrimination. Language and Speech 62.1: 115136.Google Scholar
McCullough, E. A., Clopper, C. G., and Wagner, L.. 2019b. The development of regional dialect locality judgments and language attitudes across the life span. Child Development 90.4: 10801096.Google Scholar
McIntosh, J. 2005. Language essentialism and social hierarchies among Giriama and Swahili. Journal of Pragmatics 37.12: 19191944.Google Scholar
McKay, R., Arciuli, J., Atkinson, A., Bennett, E., and Pheils, E.. 2010. Lateralisation of self-esteem: An investigation using a dichotically presented auditory adaptation of the Implicit Association Test. Cortex 46.3: 367373.Google Scholar
McKee, R. and McKee, D.. 2020. Globalization, hybridity, and vitality in the linguistic ideologies of New Zealand Sign Language users. Language and Communication 74: 164181.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. M. 2008a. Social factors and non-native attitudes towards varieties of spoken English: A Japanese case study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18.1: 6388.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. M. 2008b. The role of variety recognition in Japanese university students’ attitudes towards English speech varieties. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 29.2: 139153.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. M. 2010. The Social Psychology of English as a Global Language: Attitudes, Awareness and Identity in the Japanese Context. London: Springer.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. M. and Carrie, E.. 2018. Implicit–explicit attitudinal discrepancy and the investigation of language attitude change in progress. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 39.9: 830844.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. M., Kitikanan, P., and Boriboon, P.. 2016. The competence and warmth of Thai students’ attitudes towards varieties of English: The effect of gender and perceptions of L1 diversity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37.6: 536550.Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. M., Huang, M., Ong, T. T., and Snodin, N.. 2019. Socio-psychological salience and categorization accuracy of speaker place of origin. Lingua 228: 102705.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. P. 2005. Semantic Priming: Perspectives from Memory and Word Recognition. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Mehler, J., Jusczyk, P., Lambertz, G., Halsted, N., Bertoncini, J., and Amiel-Tison, C.. 1988. A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. Cognition 29.2: 143178.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., and Kendall, P. L.. 1956/1990. The focused interview. American Journal of Sociology 51: 541557.Google Scholar
Mertz, E. 1989. Sociolinguistic creativity: Cape Breton Gaelic’s linguistic ‘tip’. In Dorian, N. C., ed. Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 103116.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, M., Schleef, E., and MacKenzie, L.. 2015. Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide to Data Collection and Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Milani, T. M. and Johnson, S.. 2010. Critical intersections: Language ideologies and media discourse. In Johnson, S. and Milani, T. M., eds. Language Ideologies and Media Discourse: Texts, Practises, Policies. London: Continuum, 314.Google Scholar
Millar, R. M. [and Horsbroch, D.]. 2000. Covert and overt language attitudes to the Scots tongue expressed in the Statistical accounts of Scotland. In Kastovsky, D. and Mettinger, A., eds. The History of English in a Social Context. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 169198.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. 2001. Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5.4: 530555.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. 2012. Sociolinguistics and ideologies in language history. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 571584.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L.. 2012. Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. and Gordon, M.. 2003. Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J. P., Nosek, B. A., and Banaji, M. R.. 2003. Contextual variations in implicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132.3: 455469.Google Scholar
Mitchiner, J. C. 2014. Deaf parents of cochlear-implanted children: Beliefs on bimodal bilingualism. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 20.1: 5166.Google Scholar
Moges, R. T. 2015. Challenging sign language lineages and geographies: The case of Eritrean, Finnish, and Swedish Sign Languages. In Friedner, M. and Kusters, A., eds. It’s a Small World: International Deaf Spaces and Encounters. Washington: Gallaudet University Press, 8394.Google Scholar
Moïse, L. C. and Bourhis, R. Y.. 1994. Langage et ethnicité: Communication interculturelle à Montréal, 1977–1991. Canadian Ethnic Studies 26.1: 86107.Google Scholar
Molden, D. 2014. Understanding priming effects in social psychology: An overview and integration. Social Cognition 32.Supplement, 243249.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C. 2007. Northern English dialects: A perceptual approach. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sheffield. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/1203/.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C. 2011a. Sprachraum and its perception. In Lameli, A., Kehrein, R., and Rabanus, S., eds. Language and Space – An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation. Vol. 2. Language Mapping. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 586605.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C. 2011b. Starburst charts: Methods for investigating the geographical perception of and attitudes towards speech samples. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 7. https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/07/montgomery/index.html.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C. 2012. The effect of proximity in perceptual dialectology. Journal of Sociolinguistics 16.5: 638668.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C. 2014. Perceptual ideology across the Scottish-English border. In Watt, D. and Llamas, C., eds. Language, Borders and Identities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 118136.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C. 2016. Perceptual prominence of city-based dialect areas in Great Britain. In Cramer, J. and Montgomery, C., eds. Cityscapes and Perceptual Dialectology: Global Perspectives on Non-Linguists Knowledge of the Dialect Landscape. Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 185207.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C. 2018. The perceptual dialectology of England. In Braber, N. and Jansen, S., eds. Sociolinguistics in England. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 127164.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C. and Moore, E.. 2018. Evaluating S(c)illy voices: The effects of salience, stereotypes, and co-present language variables on real-time reactions to regional speech. Language 94.3: 629661.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C. and Stoeckle, P.. 2013. Geographic information systems and perceptual dialectology: A method for processing draw-a-map data. Journal of Linguistic Geography 1.1: 5285.Google Scholar
Moon, C., Cooper, R. P., and Fifer, W. P.. 1993. Two-day-olds prefer their native language. Infant Behavior and Development 16.4: 495500.Google Scholar
Mooney, D. and Hawkey, J.. 2019. The variable palatal lateral in Occitan and Catalan: Linguistic transfer or regular sound change? Journal of French Language Studies 29.2: 281303.Google Scholar
Moriarty Harrelson, E. 2019. Deaf people with ‘no language’: Mobility and flexible accumulation in languaging practices of deaf people in Cambodia. Applied Linguistics Review 10.1: 5572.Google Scholar
Moriarty, E. 2020a. Exploring sign language histories and documentation projects in post-conflict areas. In Kusters, A., Green, E. M., Moriarty, E., and Snoddon, K., eds. Sign Language Ideologies in Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter/Ishara Press, 309330.Google Scholar
Moriarty, E. 2020b. Filmmaking in a linguistic ethnography of deaf tourist encounters. Sign Language Studies 20.4: 572594.Google Scholar
Morse, J. M. 2003. Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., eds. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 189208.Google Scholar
Morstatter, F., Pfeffer, J., Liu, H., and Carley, K. M.. 2013. Is the sample good enough? Comparing data from Twitter’s Streaming API with Twitter’s Firehose. Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 7.1: 400408. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14401.Google Scholar
Moschonas, S. and Spitzmüller, J.. 2010. Prescriptivism in and about the media: A comparative analysis of corrective practices in Greece and Germany. In Johnson, S. and Milani, T. M., eds. Language Ideologies and Media Discourse: Texts, Practices, Policies. London: Continuum, 1740.Google Scholar
Moyna, M. I. and Loureiro-Rodríguez, V.. 2017. La técnica de máscaras emparejadas para evaluar actitudes hacia formas de tratamiento en el español de Montevideo. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana 15.2: 4782.Google Scholar
Muir, K., Joinson, A., Cotterill, R., and Dewdney, N.. 2017. Linguistic style accommodation shapes impression formation and rapport in Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 36.5: 525548.Google Scholar
Munson, B., Ryherd, K., and Kemper, S.. 2017. Implicit and explicit gender priming in English lingual sibilant fricative perception. Linguistics 55.5: 10731107.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. T. and Zajonc, R. B.. 1993. Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64.5: 723739.Google Scholar
Murray, J. 2017. Academic and community interactions in the formation of Deaf Studies in the United States. In Kusters, A., De Meulder, M., and O’Brien, D., eds. Innovations in Deaf Studies: The Role of Deaf Scholars. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 77100.Google Scholar
Napier, J. 2021. Sign Language Brokering in Deaf-Hearing Families. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nazzi, T., Bertoncini, J., and Mehler, J.. 1998. Language discrimination by newborns: Toward an understanding of the role of rhythm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24.3: 756766.Google Scholar
Nazzi, T., Jusczyk, P. W., and Johnson, E. K.. 2000. Language discrimination by English-learning 5-month-olds: Effects of rhythm and familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language 43.1: 119.Google Scholar
Neely, J. H. 1977. Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 106.3: 226254.Google Scholar
Neely, J. H. 1991. Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In Besner, D. and Humphreys, G. W., eds. Basic Processes in Reading: Visual Word Recognition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 264336.Google Scholar
Nesdale, D. and Rooney, R.. 1996. Evaluations and stereotyping of accented speakers by pre-adolescent children. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 15.2: 133154.Google Scholar
Ness Evans, A. and Rooney, B. J.. 2013. Methods in Psychological Research. 3rd ed. New York: SAGE.Google Scholar
Neuendorf, K. A. 2017. The Content Analysis Guidebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H.. 2017. Historical Sociolinguistics. Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Niedzielski, N. A. and Preston, D. R.. 2003. Folk Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M., Haun, D., Kärtner, J., and Legare, C. H.. 2017. The persistent sampling bias in developmental psychology: A call to action. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 162: 3138.Google Scholar
Nielsen, D. and Hay, J.. 2005. Perceptions of regional dialects in New Zealand. Te Reo 48: 95110.Google Scholar
Nikander, P. 2008. Working with transcripts and translated data. Qualitative Research in Psychology 5.3: 225231.Google Scholar
Nilsson, J., Leinonen, T., and Wenner, L.. 2019. Tracking change in social meaning: The indexicality of ‘damped’ /i/ in rural Sweden. In Villena-Ponsoda, J.-A., Díaz-Montesinos, F., Ávila-Muñoz, A.-M., and Vida-Castro, M., eds. Language Variation – European Perspectives VII. Selected Papers from the Ninth International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE9), Malaga, June 2017. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 145158.Google Scholar
Nonaka, A. M. 2014. (Almost) everyone here spoke Ban Khor Sign Language – Until they started using TSL: Language shift and endangerment of a Thai village sign language. Language and Communication 38: 5472.Google Scholar
Nortier, J. and Svendsen, B.. 2015. Language, Youth and Identity in the 21st Century: Linguistic Practices across Urban Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., and Banaji, M. R.. 2005. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test II: Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31.2: 166180.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, J. F., Lucas, A., and McManus, T.. 2012. Educational contexts and intergroup communication. In Giles, H., ed. The Handbook of Intergroup Communication. London: Routledge, 306318.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. and Kusters, A.. 2017. Visual methods in Deaf Studies: Using photography and filmmaking in research with deaf people. In Kusters, A., De Meulder, M., and O’Brien, D., eds. Innovations in Deaf Studies: The Role of Deaf Scholars. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 265298.Google Scholar
O’Cathain, A. and Thomas, K. J.. 2004. ‘Any other comments?’: open questions on questionnaires – a bane or a bonus to research? BMC Medical Research Methodology 4: 25.Google Scholar
O’Connell, N. 2017. Writing the Deaf self in autoethnography. In Kusters, A., De Meulder, M., and O’Brien, D., eds. Innovations in Deaf Studies. The Role of Deaf Scholars. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 297315.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. 2011a. Galician and Irish in the European Context: Attitudes towards Weak and Strong Minority Languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. 2011b. Whose language is it? Struggles for language ownership in an Irish language classroom. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 10.5: 327345.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. 2011c. Negotiating multilingualism in an Irish primary school context. In Hélot, C., and Ó Laoire, M., eds. Language Policy for the Multilingual Classroom: Pedagogy of the Possible. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 105125.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. 2017. Negotiating the standard in contemporary Galicia. In Lane, P., Costa, J., and De Korne, H., eds. Standardizing Minority Languages: Competing Ideologies of Authority and Authenticity in the Global Periphery. Oxon: Routledge, 84100.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. 2018. Just use it! Linguistic conversion and identities of resistance amongst Galician new speakers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 39.5: 407418.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. 2019. Carving out breathing spaces for Galician: New speakers’ investment in monolingual practices. In Jaspers, J. and Madsen, L. M., eds. Critical Perspectives on Linguistic Fixity and Fluidity: Languagised Lives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. and Hogan-Brun, G.. 2013. Language attitudes in language policy and planning. In Chapelle, C. A., ed. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0607.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. and Ramallo, F.. 2013. Competing ideologies of linguistic authority amongst new speakers in contemporary Galicia. Language in Society 42.3: 287305.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. and Ramallo, F.. 2015. Neofalantes as an active minority: Understanding language practices and motivations for change amongst new speakers of Galician. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 231: 147165.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B., Pujolar, J., and Ramallo, F.. 2015. New speakers of minority language: The challenging opportunity – Foreword. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 231: 120.Google Scholar
Oakes, L. 2010. Lambs to the slaughter? Young Francophones and the role of English in Quebec today. Multilingua 29.3–4: 265288.Google Scholar
Oakes, L. 2021. Pluricentric linguistic justice: A new ethics-based approach to pluricentricity in French and other languages. Sociolinguistica 35.1.Google Scholar
Oakes, L. and Warren, J.. 2007. Language, Citizenship and Identity in Quebec. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Obar, J. A. and Wildman, S.. 2015. Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue. Telecommunications Policy 39.9: 745750.Google Scholar
Offord, D., Rjéoutski, V., and Argent, G.. 2018. Language attitudes. In Offord, D., Rjéoutski, V., and Argent, G.. The French Language in Russia. A Social, Political, Cultural, and Literary History. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 461517.Google Scholar
Ohama, M. L. F., Gotay, C. C., Pagano, I. S., Boles, L., and Craven, D. D.. 2000. Evaluations of Hawaii Creole English and Standard English. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 19.3: 357377.Google Scholar
Olson, J. M., Goffin, R. D., and Haynes, G. A.. 2007. Relative versus absolute measures of explicit attitudes: Implications for predicting diverse attitude-relevant criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93.6: 907926.Google Scholar
Olson, M. A. and Fazio, R. H.. 2004. Reducing the influence of extrapersonal associations on the Implicit Association Test: Personalizing the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86.5: 653667.Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration. 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349.6251: 943.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, A. N. 2000. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Ord, J. K. and Getis, A.. 1995. Local spatial autocorrelation statistics: Distributional issues and an application. Geographical Analysis 27.4: 286306.Google Scholar
Orena, A. J., Byers-Heinlein, K., and Polka, L.. 2019. What do bilingual infants actually hear? Evaluating measures of language input to bilingual-learning 10-month-olds. Developmental Science e12901.Google Scholar
Ortner, L. 1995. Resistance and the problem of ethnographic refusal. Comparative Studies in Society and History 37.1: 173193.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H.. 1957. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Oxoli, D., Prestifilippo, G., Bertocchi, D., and Zurbaran, M. A.. 2017. Enabling spatial autocorrelation mapping in QGIS: The Hotspot Analysis Plugin. Geoingegneria Ambientale e Mineraria 151.2: 4550.Google Scholar
Oxoli, D., Zurbaran, M. A., Shaji, S., and Muthusamy, A. K.. 2016. Hotspot analysis: A first prototype Python plugin enabling exploratory spatial data analysis into QGIS. PeerJ Preprints. 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2204v4.Google Scholar
Padden, C. 1990. Folk explanation in language survival. In Bragg, L., ed. Deaf World: A Historical Reader and Primary Sourcebook. New York: New York University Press, 104115.Google Scholar
Paffey, D. 2010. Globalizing Standard Spanish: The promotion of ‘panhispanism’ by Spain’s language guardians. In Johnson, S. and Milani, T. M., eds. Language Ideologies and Media Discourse: Texts, Practises, Policies. London: Continuum, 4160.Google Scholar
Paffey, D. 2012. Language Ideologies and the Globalization of ‘Standard’ Spanish. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Page, R. 2012. The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse and Communication. 6.2: 181201.Google Scholar
Palfreyman, N. 2019. Variation in Indonesian Sign Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paltridge, J. and Giles, H.. 1984. Attitudes towards speakers of regional accents of French: Affects of regionality, age and sex of listeners. Linguistische Berichte 90: 7185.Google Scholar
Palviainen, Å. and Huhta, A.. 2015. Investigating relationships between language attitudes and policy issues. In Hult, F. M. and Johnson, D. C., eds. Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 193204.Google Scholar
Pantos, A. 2019. Implicitness, automaticity, and consciousness in language attitudes research. Are they related and how do we characterize them? Linguistics Vanguard 5.s1: 20180007.Google Scholar
Pantos, A. J. and Perkins, A. W.. 2012. Measuring implicit and explicit attitudes toward foreign accented speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32.1: 320.Google Scholar
Paquette-Smith, M., Buckler, H., White, K. S., Choi, J., and Johnson, E. K.. 2019. The effect of accent exposure on children’s sociolinguistic evaluation of peers. Developmental Psychology 55.4: 809822.Google Scholar
Pardo, J. S., Gibbons, R., Suppes, A., and Krauss, R. M.. 2012. Phonetic convergence in college roommates. Journal of Phonetics 40.1: 190197.Google Scholar
Parks, E. S. 2014. Constructing national and international deaf identity: Perceived use of American Sign Language. In Watt, D. and Llamas, C., eds. Language, Borders and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 206217.Google Scholar
Pasquini, E. S., Corriveau, K. H., Koenig, M., and Harris, P. L.. 2007. Preschoolers monitor the relative accuracy of informants. Developmental Psychology 43.5: 12161226.Google Scholar
Pavalanathan, U. and Eisenstein, J.. 2015. Audience-modulated variation in online social media. American Speech 90.2: 187213.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. 2002. Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use. In Cook, V. J., ed. Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 277302.Google Scholar
Pear, T. H. 1931. Voice and Personality. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Pearce, M. 2009. A perceptual dialect map of North East England. Journal of English Linguistics 37.2: 162192.Google Scholar
Pearson, B. Z., Conner, T., and Jackson, J. E.. 2013. Removing obstacles for African American English-speaking children through greater understanding of language difference. Developmental Psychology 49.1: 3144.Google Scholar
Peersman, C. 2012. Written vernaculars in Medieval and Renaissance times. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 639654.Google Scholar
Peirce, J. W., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M. R., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., and Lindeløv, J.. 2019. PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods 1.1: 195203.Google Scholar
Peña, M., Maki, A., Kovačić, D., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Koizumi, H., Bouquet, F., and Mehler, J.. 2003. Sounds and silence: An optical topography study of language recognition at birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100.20: 1170211705.Google Scholar
Penke, L., Eichstaedt, J., and Asendorpf, J. B.. 2006. Single-Attribute Implicit Association Tests (SA-IAT) for the assessment of unipolar constructs: The case of sociosexuality. Experimental Psychology 53.4: 283291.Google Scholar
Percy, C. 2014. Early advertising and newspapers as sources of sociolinguistic investigation. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 191205.Google Scholar
Perdue, C. W., Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. B., and Tyler, R. B.. 1990. Us and them: Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59.3: 475486.Google Scholar
Pérez Casas, M. 2016. Codeswitching and identity among island Puerto Rican bilinguals. In Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., Mazak, C. M., and Parafita Couto, M. C., eds. Spanish-English Code-Switching in the Caribbean and the US. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3760.Google Scholar
Pérez Sabater, C. 2017. Linguistic accommodation in online communication: The role of language and gender. Revista signos 50.94: 265286.Google Scholar
Perneger, T. V., Courvoisier, D. S., Hudelson, P. M., and Gayet-Ageron, A.. 2015. Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires. Quality of Life Research 24.1: 147151.Google Scholar
Pharao, N. and Kristiansen, T.. 2019. Reflections on the relation between direct/indirect methods and explicit/implicit attitudes. Linguistic Vanguard 5.s1: 20180010.Google Scholar
Pichler, D. C., Lillo-Martin, D., and Palmer, J. L.. 2018. A short introduction to heritage signers. Sign Language Studies 18.3: 309327.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. and Garrod, S.. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27.2: 169190.Google Scholar
Pieras-Guasp, F. 2002. Direct vs. indirect attitude measurement and the planning of Catalan in Mallorca. Language Problems and Language Planning 26.1: 5168.Google Scholar
Pink, S. 2013. Doing Visual Ethnography. 3rd ed. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Pitts, M. J. 2017. International students’ cross-cultural communication accommodation through language approximation and topic selection strategies on Facebook and its relationship to the students’ acculturation attitude, psychological adjustment, and socio-cultural adaptation. Unpublished MA Thesis, The University of Arizona. https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/596088.Google Scholar
Pizer, G., Walters, K., and Meier, R. P.. 2007. Bringing up baby with baby signs: Language ideologies and socialization in hearing families. Sign Language Studies 7.4: 387430.Google Scholar
Platt, J. 2012. The history of the interview. In Gubrium, J. F., Holstein, J. A., Marvasti, A. B., and McKinney, K. D., eds. The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 926.Google Scholar
Plichta, B. and Preston, D. R.. 2005. The /ay/s have it: The perception of /ay/ as a north-south stereotype in United States English. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 37.1: 107130.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. and Gonulal, T.. 2015. Methodological synthesis in quantitative L2 research: A review of reviews and a case study of exploratory factor analysis. Language Learning 65.1: 936.Google Scholar
Podesva, R. J., and Zsiga, E.. 2013. Sound recordings: Acoustic and articulatory data. In Podesva, R. J. and Sharma, D., eds. Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 169194.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. 1980. Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18.7–8: 581618.Google Scholar
Potter, J. 2003. Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In Camic, P. M., Rhodes, J. E., and Yardley, L., eds. Qualitative Research in Psychology: Expanding Perspectives in Methodology and Design. Washington: American Psychological Association, 7394.Google Scholar
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M.. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Pousada, A. 1999. The singularly strange story of the English Language in Puerto Rico. Milenio: Revista de Artes y Ciencias 3: 3360.Google Scholar
Powell, M. C. and Fazio, R. H.. 1984. Attitude accessibility as a function of repeated attitudinal expression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 10.1: 139148.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. 1986. Five visions of America. Language in Society 15.2: 221240.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. 1989. Perceptual Dialectology: Non-Linguists’ View of Aerial Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. 1993a. Folk dialectology. In Preston, D. R., ed. American Dialect Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 333377.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. 1993b. The use of folk linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 3.2: 181259.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. 1994. Content-oriented discourse analysis and folk linguistics. Language Sciences 16.2: 285331.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. 1996. Whaddayaknow? The modes of folk linguistic awareness. Language Awareness 5.1: 4074.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. 1999a. Introduction. In Preston, D. R., ed. Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, xxiiixxxix.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R., ed. 1999b. Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. 1999c. A language attitude approach to the perception of regional variety. In Preston, D. R., ed. Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 359375.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. 2009. Are you really smart (or stupid, or cute, or ugly, or cool)? Or do you just talk that way? In Maegaard, M., Gregerson, F., Quist, P., and Jørgensen, J. N., eds. Language Attitudes, Standardization and Language Change: Perspectives on Themes raised by Tore Kristiansen on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Oslo: Novus Forlag, 105129.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. 2010. Perceptual dialectology in the 21st century. In Anders, C. A., Hundt, M., and Lasch, A., eds. Perceptual Dialectology. Neue Wege der Dialektologie. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 129.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. 2011. The power of language regard: Discrimination, classification, comprehension and production. Dialectologia. Special issue II: 9–33.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. 2019. How to trick respondents into revealing implicit attitudes – talk to them. Linguistics Vanguard 5.s1: 20180006.Google Scholar
Price, A. R. and Tamburelli, M.. 2019. Welsh-language prestige in adolescents: Attitudes in the heartlands. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 30.2: 195213.Google Scholar
Prince, M. and Davies, M.. 2001. Moderator teams: An extension to focus group methodology. Qualitative Market Research 4.4: 207216.Google Scholar
Psychology Software Tools, Inc. 2016. E-Prime 3.0. https://www.pstnet.com.Google Scholar
Puah, Y. Y. and Ting, S. H.. 2015. Malaysian Chinese speakers’ attitudes towards Foochow, Hokkien and Mandarin. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 36.5: 451467.Google Scholar
Puchta, C. and Potter, J.. 2002. Manufacturing individual opinions: Market research focus groups and the discursive psychology of evaluation. British Journal of Social Psychology 41.3: 345363.Google Scholar
Puchta, C. and Potter, J.. 2004. Focus Group Practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Purnell, T., Isardi, W., and Baugh, J.. 1999. Perceptual and phonetic experiments on American English dialect identification. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18.1: 1030.Google Scholar
Putter, A. forthcoming. Multilingualism. In Ríkharðsdóttir, S. and Radulescu, R., eds. The Routledge Companion to Medieval English Literature in a Trans-European Context 1100–1500. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
QGIS Development Team. 2020. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.orgGoogle Scholar
Quer, J. and Steinbach, M.. 2019. Handling sign language data: The impact of modality. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 483.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rakić, T., Steffens, M. C., and Mummendey, A.. 2011. Blinded by the accent! The minor role of looks in ethnic categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100.1: 1629.Google Scholar
Rakoczy, H., Warneken, F., and Tomasello, M.. 2009. Young children’s selective learning of rule games from reliable and unreliable models. Cognitive Development 24.1: 6169.Google Scholar
Rallis, S. F. and Rossman, G. B.. 2009. Ethics and trustworthiness. In Heigham, J. and Croker, R. A., eds. Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Introduction. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 263287.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. 1991. Second language learners in a stratified multilingual setting. Applied Linguistics 12.3: 229248.Google Scholar
Ramus, F., Hauser, M. D., Miller, C., Morris, D., and Mehler, J.. 2000. Language discrimination by human newborns and by cotton-top tamarin monkeys. Science 288.5464: 349351.Google Scholar
Rangel, N., Loureiro-Rodríguez, V., and Moyna, M. I.. 2015. ¿Así Me Escucho Cuando Hablo? Attitudes towards Spanish, English, and Code-Switching in two Texas border towns. Spanish in Context 12.2: 177198.Google Scholar
Rapley, T. 2012. The (extra)ordinary practices of qualitative interviewing. In Gubrium, J. F., Holstein, J. A., Marvasti, A. B., and McKinney, K. D., eds. The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 541554.Google Scholar
Rasinger, S. M. 2018. Quantitative methods: Concepts, frameworks and issues. In Litosseliti, L., ed. Research Methods in Linguistics. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury, 117138.Google Scholar
Reagan, T. 2011. Ideological barriers to American Sign Language: Unpacking linguistic resistance. Sign Language Studies 11.4: 606636.Google Scholar
Redinger, D. 2010. Language attitudes and code-switching behaviour in a multilingual educational context: The case of Luxembourg. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The University of York.Google Scholar
Regan, B. P. 2019. Dialectology meets sociophonetics: The social evaluation of Ceceo and Distinción in Lepe, Spain. In Chappell, W., ed. Recent Advances in the Study of Spanish Sociophonetic Perception. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 86121.Google Scholar
Région Bretagne. 2018. Enquête socio-linguistique: Qui parle les langues de Bretagne aujourd’hui? https://www.bretagne.bzh/actualites/enquete-socio-linguistique-qui-parle-les-langues-de-bretagne-aujourdhui/.Google Scholar
Reichmann, O., with contributions from Burgi, C., Kaufhold, M., and Schäfer, C.. 1988. Zur Vertikalisierung des Varietätenspektrums in der jüngeren Sprachgeschichte des Deutschen. In Munske, H. H., von Polenz, P., Reichmann, O., and Hildebrandt, R., eds. Deutscher Wortschatz. Lexikologische Studien Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 80. Geburtstag von seinen Schülern. Berlin: De Gruyter, 151180.Google Scholar
Remysen, W. 2005. La chronique de langage à la lumière de l’expérience canadienne-française: Un essai de définition. In Bérubé, J., Gauvin, K., and Remysen, W., eds. Les Journées de linguistique: Actes du 18e colloque 11–12 mars 2004. Québec: Centre interdisciplinaire de recherches sur les activités langagières, 267281.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M., Rizzo, M., Foster-Hanson, E., Moty, K., Leshin, R., Wang, M. M., Benitez, J., and Ocampo, J.. 2020. Advancing developmental science via unmoderated remote research with children. PsyArXiv. May 15. 10.31234/osf.io/k2rwy.Google Scholar
Rindal, U. 2010. Constructing identity with L2: Pronunciation and attitudes among Norwegian learners of English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14.2: 240261.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L.. 1994. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Bryman, A. and Burgess, R. G., eds. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge, 173194.Google Scholar
Rivers, A. M. and Sherman, J.. 2018. Experimental design and the reliability of priming effects: Reconsidering the ‘train wreck’. PsyArXiv Preprints. https://psyarxiv.com/r7pd3/.Google Scholar
Rjéoutski, V., Argent, G., and Offord, D., eds. 2014. European Francophonie. The Social, Political and Cultural History of an International Prestige Language. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. D., Meier, B. P., Zetocha, K. J., and McCaul, K. D.. 2005. Smoking and the Implicit Association Test: When the contrast category determines the theoretical conclusions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 27.3: 201212.Google Scholar
Robinson, O. and Henner, J. 2017. The personal is political in The Deaf Mute Howls: Deaf epistemology seeks disability justice. Disability and Society 32.9: 1416-1436.Google Scholar
Rodgers, E. 2017. Towards a typology of discourse-based approaches to language attitudes. Language and Communication 56: 8294.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Bou, I. 1984. Crisis Del Vernáculo En Puerto Rico: Hallazgos y Sugerencias. Boletín de La Academia Puertorriqueña de La Lengua Española 12.1: 526.Google Scholar
Rogers, L., Tenhouten, W., Kaplan, C. D., and Gardiner, M.. 1977. Hemispheric specialization of language: An EEG study of bilingual Hopi Indian children. International Journal of Neuroscience 8.1: 16.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1995. Bilingualism. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. 1975. The nature of mental codes for color categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1.4: 303322.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M. J. and Hovland, C. I.. 1960. Cognitive, affective and behavioural components of attitudes. In Rosenberg, M. J., Hovland, C. I., McGuire, W. J., Abelson, R. P., and Brehm, J. W., eds. Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency among Attitude Components. New Haven: Yale University Press, 114.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, L. D. 2008. Speech perception as a multimodal phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17.6: 405409.Google Scholar
Rosenstock, R. 2008. The role of iconicity in International Sign. Sign Language Studies 8.2: 131159.Google Scholar
Rosseel, L. and Grondelaers, S.. 2019. Implicitness and experimental methods in language variation research. Linguistics Vanguard 5.s1: 20180005.Google Scholar
Rosseel, L., Speelman, D., and Geeraerts, D.. 2018. Measuring language attitudes using the Personalized Implicit Association Test: A case study on regional varieties of Dutch in Belgium. Journal of Linguistic Geography 6.1: 119.Google Scholar
Rosseel, L., Speelman, D., and Geeraerts, D.. 2019. Exploring the potential of the Personalized Implicit Association Test to measure language attitudes in context. Language in Society 48.3: 429461.Google Scholar
Rössler, P. 1997. Die deutschen Grammatiken der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts in Österreich. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rossman, G. B. and Wilson, B. L.. 1985. Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review 9.5: 627643.Google Scholar
Roth, W.-M. 2015. Rigorous Data Analysis: Beyond Anything Goes. Rotterdam: Brill.Google Scholar
Rothbart, M. 2001. Category dynamics and the modification of outgroup stereotypes. In Brown, R. and Gaertner, S. L., eds. Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes. Oxford: Blackwell, 4564.Google Scholar
Rothermund, K., Teige-Mocigemba, S., Gast, A., and Wentura, D.. 2009. Minimizing the influence of recoding in the Implicit Association Test: The Recoding-Free Implicit Association Test (IAT-RF). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62.1: 8498.Google Scholar
Rowley, K. and Cormier, K.. 2021. Accent or not? Language attitudes towards regional variation in British Sign Language. Applied Linguistics Review. 10.1515/applirev-2020-0144Google Scholar
Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., and McGeorge, P.. 2005. Social norms and self-presentation: Children’s implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development 76.2: 451466.Google Scholar
Rutten, G. 2019. Language Planning as Nation Building. Ideology, Policy and Implementation in the Netherlands, 1750–1850. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rutten, G., Krogull, A., and Schoemaker, B. O.. 2020. Implementation and acceptance of national language policy: The case of Dutch (1750-1850). Language Policy 19: 259279.Google Scholar
Rutten, G., Vosters, R., and Vandenbussche, W., eds. 2014. Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600-1900. A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rutten, G., Vosters, R., and van der Wal, M.. 2015. Frenchification in discourse and practice. Loan morphology in Dutch private letters of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. In Peersman, R., Rutten, F., and Vosters, R., eds. Past, Present and Future of a Language Border. Germanic-Romanic Encounters in the Low Countries. Berlin: De Gruyter, 143169.Google Scholar
Rutten, G., Salmons, J., Vandenbussche, W., and Vosters, R.. 2017. Unraveling multilingualism in times past: The interplay of language contact, language use and language planning. Sociolinguistica 31.1: 920.Google Scholar
Ryan, E. B. 1983. Social psychological mechanisms underlying native speaker evaluations of non-native speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5.2: 148159.Google Scholar
Ryan, E. B. and Carranza, M. A.. 1975. Evaluative reactions of adolescents toward speakers of standard English and Mexican American accented English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31.5: 855863.Google Scholar
Ryan, E. B. and Giles, H., eds. 1982. Attitudes towards Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Ryan, E. B., Giles, H., and Hewstone, M.. 1988. The measurement of language attitudes. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., and Mattheier, K. J., eds. Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of Language and Society. Vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 10681081.Google Scholar
Ryan, E. B., Giles, H., and Sebastian, R. J.. 1982. An integrative perspective for the study of attitudes towards language variation. In Ryan, E. B. and Giles, H., eds. Attitudes Towards Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts. London: Edward Arnold, 119.Google Scholar
Ryan, E. B., Hewstone, M., and Giles, H.. 1984. Language and intergroup attitudes. In Eiser, J. R., ed. Attitudinal Judgment. New York: Springer, 135160.Google Scholar
Ryan, G. W. and Bernard, H. R.. 2000. Data management and analysis methods. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S., eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 769802.Google Scholar
Rymes, B. and Leone-Pizzighella, A.. 2018. YouTube-based accent challenge narratives: Web 2.0 as a context for studying the social value of accent. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 250: 137163.Google Scholar
Sachdev, I. and Bourhis, R. Y.. 1993. Ethnolinguistic vitality: Some motivational and cognitive considerations. In Hogg, M. and Abrams, D., eds. Group Motivation: Social Psychological Perspectives. New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf, 3352.Google Scholar
Sachdev, I., Elmufti, N., and Collins, P.. 1998. Oral assessment and accent evaluation: Some British data. In Agnihotri, R., Khanna, A. L., and Sachdev, I., eds. Social Psychological Perspectives on Second Language Learning. New Delhi: SAGE, 187203.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., and Newport, E. L.. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274.5294: 19261928.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., Aslin, R. N., and Newport, E. L.. 1999. Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition 70.1: 2752.Google Scholar
Sairio, A. and Palander-Collin, M.. 2012. The reconstruction of prestige patterns in language history. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 626638.Google Scholar
Saldaña, J. 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Sallabank, J. 2013. Attitudes to Endangered Languages: Identities and Policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. and Labov, W.. 1979. On the uses of variable rules. Language in Society 8.2: 189222.Google Scholar
Schembri, A., Fenlon, J., Rentelis, R., Reynolds, S., and Cormier, K.. 2013. Building the British Sign Language Corpus. Language Documentation and Conservation 7: 136154.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1985. Everyday argument: The organization of diversity in talk. In van Dijk, T. A., ed. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 3. Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press, 3546.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1990. The management of a co-operative self during argument: The role of opinions and stories. In Grimshaw, A. D., ed. Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 241259.Google Scholar
Schilling, N. 2014. Sociolinguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schleef, E. 2014. Written surveys and questionnaires in sociolinguistics. In Holmes, J. and Hazen, K., eds. Research Methods in Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Wiley, 4257.Google Scholar
Schleef, E. and Flynn, N.. 2015. Ageing meanings of (ing): Age and indexicality in Manchester, England. English World-Wide 36.1: 4890.Google Scholar
Schnabel, K., Banse, R., and Asendorpf, J. B.. 2006. Employing automatic approach and avoidance tendencies for the assessment of implicit personality self-concept: The Implicit Association Procedure (IAP). Experimental Psychology 53.1: 6976.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, W. and Chein, J. M.. 2003. Controlled and automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science 27.3: 525559.Google Scholar
Schoel, C., Roessel, J., Eck, J., Janssen, J., Petrovic, B., Rothe, A., Rudert, S. C., and Stahlberg, D.. 2013. Attitudes Towards Languages’ (AToL) scale: A global instrument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32.1: 2145.Google Scholar
Schoemaker, B. and Rutten, G.. 2017. Standard language ideology and Dutch school inspection reports (1801–1854). Sociolinguistica 31.1: 101116.Google Scholar
Schreier, D. 2013. Collecting ethnographic and sociolinguistic data. In Krug, M. and Schlüter, J., eds. Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1735.Google Scholar
Schrodt, P. 2020. What is the bar? Differentiating good from great scholarship. Communication Monographs 87.1: 13.Google Scholar
Schuurman, I., Schouppe, M., Hoekstra, H., and van der Wouden, T.. 2003. CGN, an annotated corpus of spoken Dutch. In Abeillé, A., Hansen-Schirra, S., and Uszkoreit, H., eds. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora. Budapest, 101108.Google Scholar
Schweers, C. W. Jr. and Vélez, J. A.. 1999. To be or not to be bilingual in Puerto Rico: That is the issue. Milenio: Revista de Artes y Ciencias 3: 2332.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Wong Scollon, S.. 2004. Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2014. Au revoir to ‘Bonjour-Hi’: PQ vows to clamp down on creeping bilingualism if it wins majority next election. National Post 24, February 2014.Google Scholar
Scotton, C. M. 1977. Linguistic performance as a socioeconomic indicator. The Journal of Social Psychology 102.1: 3545.Google Scholar
Sebba, M. 2007. Spelling and Society: The Culture and Politics of Orthography Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sedivy, J. 2012. Much ado about Montreal greetings. Language Log. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4025.Google Scholar
Seggie, I., Smith, N., and Hodgins, P.. 1986. Evaluations of employment suitability based on accent alone: An Australian case study. Language Sciences 8.2: 129140.Google Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., and Barth-Weingarten, D.. 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10: 353402.Google Scholar
Seror, J. 2013. Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS). In Chapelle, C. A., ed. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley Online Library. 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0177.Google Scholar
Sherman, J. W., Klauer, K. C., and Allen, T. J.. 2010. Mathematical modeling of implicit social cognition: The machine in the ghost. In Gawronski, B. and Payne, B. K., eds. Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications. New York: Guilford, 156175.Google Scholar
Shortis, T. 2016. Texting and other messaging: Written system in digitally mediated vernaculars. In Cook, V. and Ryan, D., eds. The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London: Routledge, 487516.Google Scholar
Sibata, T. 1959. Hôgen kyôkai no ishiki. Gengo Kenkyû 36: 130.Google Scholar
Siegenbeek, M. 1804. Verhandeling over de Nederduitsche spelling, ter bevordering van eenparigheid in dezelve. Amsterdam: Johannes Allart.Google Scholar
Silver, C. and Lewins, A.. 2014. Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, P. R., Hanks, W. F., and Hofbauer, C. L., eds. The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 193247.Google Scholar
Singer, E. and Couper, M. P.. 2017. Some methodological uses of responses to open questions and other verbatim comments in quantitative surveys. Methods, Data, Analyses: A Journal for Quantitative Methods and Survey Methodology 11.2: 115134.Google Scholar
Singleton, J. L., Jones, G., and Hanumantha, S.. 2014. Toward ethical research practice with Deaf participants. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 9.3: 5966.Google Scholar
Singleton, R. A. Jr. and Straits, B. C.. 2018. Approaches to Social Research. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sistilli, A. n.d. Twitter Data Mining: A Guide to Big Data Analytics Using Python. Toptal.com. https://www.toptal.com/python/twitter-data-mining-using-python.Google Scholar
Smeijers, A. S., van den Bogaerde, B., Ens-Dokkum, M. H., and Oudesluys-Murphy, A. M.. 2014. Scientific-based translation of standardized questionnaires into sign language of the Netherlands. In Nicodemus, B. and Metzger, M., eds. Investigations in Health Care Interpreting. Washington: Gallaudet University Press, 277302.Google Scholar
Smith, B., Ehala, M., and H. Giles, H. 2018. Vitality theory. In Giles, H. and Harwood, J., eds. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Intergroup Communication. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 485500.Google Scholar
Smyth, J. D., Dillman, D. A., Christian, L. M., and McBride, M.. 2009. Open-ended questions in web surveys: Can increasing the size of answer boxes and providing extra verbal instructions improve response quality? Public Opinion Quarterly 73.2: 325337.Google Scholar
Smyth, R., Jacobs, G., and Rogers, H.. 2003. Male voices and perceived sexual orientation: An experimental and theoretical approach. Language in Society 32.3: 329350.Google Scholar
Snoddon, K. 2016. Whose ASL counts? Linguistic prescriptivism and challenges in the context of parent sign language curriculum development. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education 21.8: 10041015.Google Scholar
Snoddon, K. 2020. Teaching sign language to parents of deaf children in the name of the CEFR: Exploring tensions between plurilingual ideologies and ASL pedagogical ideologies. In Kusters, A., Green, E. M., Moriarty, E., and Snoddon, K., eds. Sign Language Ideologies in Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter/Ishara Press, 143162.Google Scholar
Solís Obiols, M. 2002. The Matched Guise Technique: A critical approximation to a classic test for formal measurement of language attitudes. Noves SL. Revista Sociolingüística 1: 16.Google Scholar
Soliz, J. and Giles, H.. 2014. Relational and identity processes in communication: A contextual and meta-analytical review of Communication Accommodation Theory. Annals of the International Communication Association 38.1: 107144.Google Scholar
Soukup, B. 2009. Dialect Use as Interaction Strategy. A Sociolinguistic Study of Contextualization, Speech Perception, and Language Attitudes in Austria. Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar
Soukup, B. 2013a. The measurement of ‘language attitudes’ – A reappraisal from a constructionist perspective. In Kristiansen, T. and Grondelaers, S., eds. Language (De)standardisation in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies. Oslo: Novus, 251266.Google Scholar
Soukup, B. 2013b. Austrian dialect as a metonymic device: A cognitive sociolinguistic investigation of Speaker Design and its perceptual implications. Journal of Pragmatics 52: 7282.Google Scholar
Soukup, B. 2013c. On matching speaker (dis)guises – Revisiting a methodological tradition. In Grondelaers, S. and Kristiansen, T., eds. Language (De)Standardization in Late Modern Europe: Experimental Studies. Oslo: Novus, 267285.Google Scholar
Soukup, B. 2015. Mixing methods in the study of language attitudes: Theory and application. In Prikhodkine, A. and Preston, D. R., eds. Responses to Language Varieties: Variability, Processes and Outcomes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 5684.Google Scholar
Soukup, B. 2019. Sprachreflexion und Kognition: Theorien und Methoden der Spracheinstellungsforschung. In Antos, G., Niehr, T., and Spitzmüller, J., eds. Handbuch Sprache im Urteil der Öffentlichkeit. Berlin: de Gruyter, 83106.Google Scholar
Souza, A. L., Byers-Heinlein, K., and Poulin-Dubois, D.. 2013. Bilingual and monolingual children prefer native-accented speakers. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 953.Google Scholar
Speed, L. J., Wnuk, E., and Majid, A.. 2017. Studying psycholinguistics out of the lab. In de Groot, A. B. M. and Hagoort, P., eds. Research Methods in Psycholinguistics and the Neurobiology of Language: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 190207.Google Scholar
Speelman, D., Spruyt, A., Impe, L., and Geeraerts, D.. 2013. Language attitudes revisited: Auditory affective priming. Journal of Pragmatics 52: 8392.Google Scholar
Spence, J. L. and Imuta, K.. 2020. Age-related changes in children’s accent-based resource distribution. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 193: 104807.Google Scholar
Spencer, K. A. and Wiley, E.. 2008. Response priming patterns differ with interstimulus interval duration. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 22.6: 475490.Google Scholar
Spilioti, T. and Tagg, C.. 2017. The ethics of online research methods in applied linguistics: Challenges, opportunities, and directions in ethical decision-making. Applied Linguistics Review 8.2–3: 163168.Google Scholar
Spooner, R. A. 2020. Permissive vs. prohibitive: Deaf and hard-of-hearing students’ perceptions of ASL and English. In Kusters, A., Green, E. M., Moriarty, E., and Snoddon, K., eds. Sign Language Ideologies in Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter/Ishara Press, 167184.Google Scholar
Spruyt, A., Hermans, D., De Houwer, J., and Eelen, P.. 2002. On the nature of the affective priming effect: Affective priming of naming responses. Social Cognition 20.3: 227256.Google Scholar
Squires, L., ed. 2016. English in Computer-Mediated Communication: Variation, Representation, and Change. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Staats, A. W. and Staats, C. K.. 1958. Attitudes established by classical conditioning. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 57.1: 3740.Google Scholar
Staats, C. K. and Staats, A. W.. 1957. Meaning established by classical conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology 54.1: 7480.Google Scholar
Steele, J. R. and Ambady, N.. 2006. ‘Math is hard!’ The effect of gender priming on women’s attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42.4: 428436.Google Scholar
Stefanescu, A. and Georgeault, P.. 2005. Conclusion. In Stefanescu, A. and Georgeault, P., eds. Le français au Québec: Les Nouveaux Defies. Montreal: Fides, 589608.Google Scholar
Steffens, M. C. 2004. Is the Implicit Association Test immune to faking? Experimental Psychology 51.3: 165179.Google Scholar
Steinert-Threlkeld, Z. C. 2018. Twitter as Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, K. and Williams, M.. 2005. Researching online populations: The use of focus groups for social research. Qualitative Research 5.4: 395416.Google Scholar
Stewart, M. A., Ryan, E. B., and Giles, H.. 1985. Accent and social class effects on status and solidarity evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 11.1: 98105.Google Scholar
Stoeckle, P. 2014. Subjektive Dialekträume im alemannischen Dreiländereck. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Strand, E. A. and Johnson, K.. 1996. Gradient and visual speaker normalization in the perception of fricatives. In Gibbon, D., ed. Natural Language Processing and Speech Technology: Results of the 3rd KONVENS Conference, Bielefeld, October 1996. Berlin: Mouton, 1426.Google Scholar
Sumner, M. and Samuel, A. G.. 2009. The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialect variants. Journal of Memory and Language 60.4: 487501.Google Scholar
Sun, S. Y. H. and Goodyear, P.. 2020. Social co-configuration in online language learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 36.2: 1326.Google Scholar
Supalla, T. and Clark, P.. 2014. Sign Language Archaeology: Understanding the Historical Roots of American Sign Language. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Sutton, S., French, D. P., Hennings, S. J., Mitchell, J., Wareham, N. J., Griffin, S., Hardeman, W., and Kinmonth, A. L.. 2003. Eliciting salient beliefs in research on the theory of planned behaviour: The effect of question wording. Current Psychology 22.3: 234251.Google Scholar
Szitó, J. 2020. ‘I do know that I have an accent’: Identities expressed through English as a lingua franca in Accent Tag videos. In Kálmán, C., ed. DEAL 2020: A Snapshot of Diversity in English Applied Linguistics. Budapest: Eötvös University Press, 95118.Google Scholar
Taboada, M. 2016. Sentiment analysis: An overview from linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics 2.1: 325347.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. 1959. A note on Lambert’s ‘Evaluation reactions to spoken language’. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13.2: 8692.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. 1981. Social stereotypes and social groups. In Turner, J. C. and Giles, H., eds. Intergroup Behaviour. Oxford: Blackwell, 144167.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C.. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S. and Austin, W. G., eds. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 724.Google Scholar
Tashakkori, A. and Creswell, J. W.. 2007. The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1.1: 37.Google Scholar
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C.. 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A.. 2009. Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioural Sciences. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Teige-Mocigemba, S., Klauer, K. C., and Rothermund, K.. 2008. Minimizing method-specific variance in the IAT: A Single Block IAT. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 24.4: 237245.Google Scholar
Teige-Mocigemba, S., Klauer, K. C., and Sherman, J. W.. 2010. A practical guide to Implicit Association Tests and related tests. In Gawronski, B. and Payne, K., eds. Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory and Applications. New York: Guilford, 117139.Google Scholar
The Language Archive. n.d. Elan. https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan.Google Scholar
Thompson, C., Lewis, D. J., and Taylor, S. J. C.. 2017. The use of video recording in longitudinal focus group research. In Barbour, R. S. and Morgan, D. L., eds. A New Era in Focus Group Research: Challenges, Innovation and Practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 207226.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. and Dooley, K.. 2020. Ensuring translation fidelity in multilingual research. In McKinley, J. and Rose, H., eds. The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxon: Routledge, 6375.Google Scholar
Tió, S. 1948. Teoría Del Espanglish. Diario de Puerto Rico October 28.5.Google Scholar
Tobler, W. 1970. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography 46.2: 234240.Google Scholar
Tophinke, D. and Ziegler, E.. 2006. ‘Aber bitte im Kontext!’. Neue Perspektiven der dialektologischen Einstellungsforschung. In Voeste, A. and Gessinger, J., eds. Dialekt im Wandel. Perspektiven einer neuen Dialektologie. Osnabrück: OBST, 203222.Google Scholar
Tophinke, D. and Ziegler, E.. 2014. Spontane Dialektthematisierung in der Weblogkommunikation: Interaktiv-kontextuelle Einbettung, semantische Topoi und sprachliche Konstruktionen. In Cuonz, C. and Studler, R., eds. Sprechen über Sprache. Perspektiven und neue Methoden der Spracheinstellungsforschung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 205242.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R. 2018. Maintaining respondent trust and protecting their data. In Vannette, D. L. and Krosnick, J. A., eds. The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 135141.Google Scholar
Trainor, A. and Ahlgren Bouchard, K.. 2013. Exploring and developing reciprocity in research design. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 26.8: 9861003.Google Scholar
Tran, M., Cabral, L., Patel, R., and Cusack, R.. 2017. Online recruitment and testing of infants with Mechanical Turk. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 156: 168178.Google Scholar
Trechter, S. 2017. Social ethics for sociolinguistics. In Mallinson, C., Childs, B., and Van Herk, G., eds. Data Collection in Sociolinguistics: Methods and Applications. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 5788.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. R. and Lambert, W. E.. 1969. White and Negro listeners’ reactions to various American-English dialects. Social Forces 47.4: 463468.Google Scholar
Tweepy. An easy-to use Python library for accessing the Twitter API. 2009-. Roesslein, J.. http://www.tweepy.org/.Google Scholar
Ura, M., Preston, K. S. J., and Mearns, J.. 2015. A measure of prejudice against accented English (MPAAE): Scale development and validation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 34.5: 539563.Google Scholar
Urla, J., Amorrortu, E., Ortega, A., and Goirigolzarri, J.. 2017. Basque standardization and the new speaker: Political praxis and the shifting dynamics of authority and value. In Lane, P., Costa, J., and De Korne, H., eds. Standardizing Minority Languages: Competing Ideologies of Authority in the Global Periphery. New York: Routledge, 2446.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau. 2006. 2010 American community survey 5-year estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 1–4 London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. 1993. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society 4.2: 249283.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. 1995. Discourse, power and access. In Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. and Coulthard, M., eds. Texts and Practices. Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, 84104.Google Scholar
Vande Kamp, M. E. 2002. Auditory Implicit Association Tests. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Vari, J. and Tamburelli, M.. 2020. Standardisation: Bolstering positive attitudes towards endangered language varieties? Evidence from implicit attitudes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Online ahead of print: 10.1080/01434632.2020.1829632.Google Scholar
Verplanken, B., Hofstee, G., and Janssen, H. J. W.. 1998. Accessibility of affective versus cognitive components of attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology 28.1: 2335.Google Scholar
Vessey, R. 2013. Too much French? Not enough French? The Vancouver Olympics and a very Canadian ideological debate. Multilingua 32.5: 659682.Google Scholar
Vessey, R. 2016. Language and Canadian Media: Representations, Ideologies, Policies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Vogel, T. and Wänke, M.. 2016. Attitudes and Attitude Change. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vogler, R. 2014. Twitter’s REST API v1.1 with R (for Linux and Windows). Joy of Data. http://www.joyofdata.de/blog/twitters-rest-api-v1-1-with-r-for-linux-and-windows/.Google Scholar
von Polenz, P. 2013. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Band 2: 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. 2. Aufl. bearbeitet von Claudine Moulin unter Mitarbeit von Dominic Harion. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vouloumanos, A. and Werker, J. F.. 2004. Tuned to the signal: The privileged status of speech for young infants. Developmental Science 7.3: 270276.Google Scholar
Vouloumanos, A. and Werker, J. F.. 2007. Listening to language at birth: Evidence for a bias for speech in neonates. Developmental Science 10.2: 159164.Google Scholar
Wagner, S. E. 2014. Pinning down enregisterment: Using Pinterest to teach students about dialect enregisterment. American Speech 89.2: 208218.Google Scholar
Walker, A. 2019. The role of dialect experience in topic-based shifts in speech production. Language Variation and Change 31.2: 135163.Google Scholar
Walker, A., García, C., Cortés, Y., and Campbell-Kibler, K.. 2014. Comparing social meanings across listener and speaker groups: The indexical field of Spanish /s/. Language Variation and Change 26.2: 169189.Google Scholar
Walker, A., Hay, J., Drager, K., and Sanchez, K.. 2018. Divergence in speech perception. Linguistics 56.1: 257278.Google Scholar
Walker, J. 2014. Variation analysis. In Podesva, R. J. and Sharma, D., eds. Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 440459.Google Scholar
Walker, M., Szakay, A., and Cox, F.. 2019. Can kiwis and koalas as cultural primes induce perceptual bias in Australian English speaking listeners? Laboratory Phonology 10.1: 7.Google Scholar
Walsh, O. 2014. ‘Les anglicismes polluent la langue française’. Purist attitudes in France and Quebec. Journal of French Language Studies 24.3: 423449.Google Scholar
Walsh, O. 2016. Linguistic Purism: Language Attitudes in France and Quebec. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Walsh, O. 2021. The construction of authority in 20th-century language columns in France. In Marimón-Llorca, C. and Schwarze, S., eds. Authoritative Discourse in Language Columns: Linguistic, Ideological and Social Issues. Berlin: Peter Lang, 6591.Google Scholar
Walther, J. B. 2007. Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior 23.5: 25382557.Google Scholar
Warr, D. J. 2005. ‘It was fun … but we don’t usually talk about these things’: Analyzing sociable interaction in focus groups. Qualitative Inquiry 11.2: 200225.Google Scholar
Watson, K. and Clark, L.. 2013. How salient is the nurse~square merger? English Language and Linguistics 17.2: 297323.Google Scholar
Watson, K. and Clark, L.. 2015. Exploring listeners’ real-time reactions to regional accents. Language Awareness 24.1: 3859.Google Scholar
Watt, D., Fabricius, A., and Kendall, T.. 2011. More on vowels: Plotting and normalisation. In Di Paolo, M. and Yaeger-Dror, M., eds. Sociophonetics: A Student’s Guide. Abingdon: Routledge, 107118.Google Scholar
Watt, D., Llamas, C., French, P., Braun, A., and Robertson, D.. 2019. Listener sensitivity to localised accent features using the Geographical Association Test (GAT). Presented at UK Language Variation and Change 12, London, 3–5 September.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. 2012. Language myths. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 585606.Google Scholar
Weatherhead, D., White, K. S., and Friedman, O.. 2016. Where are you from? Preschoolers infer background from accent. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 143: 171178.Google Scholar
Weatherhead, D., Friedman, O., and White, K. S.. 2019. Preschoolers are sensitive to accent distance. Journal of Child Language 46.6: 10581072.Google Scholar
Weatherholtz, K., Campbell-Kibler, K., and Jaeger, T. F.. 2014. Socially-mediated syntactic alignment. Language, Variation and Change 26.3: 387420.Google Scholar
Weber, J. 2013. The Deaf House. Saskatoon: Thistledown Press.Google Scholar
Weber, J. 2020. Interrogating sign language ideologies in the Saskatchewan deaf community: An autoethnography. In Kusters, A., Green, E. M., Moriarty, E., and Snoddon, K., eds. Sign Language Ideologies in Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter/Ishara Press, 2541.Google Scholar
Weijnen, A. A. 1946. De grenzen tussen de Oost-Noordbrabantse dialecten onderin. In Weijnen, A. A., Renders, M., and van Guineken, J., eds. Oost-Noordbrabantse dialectproblemen. Bijdragen En Mededelingen Der Dialectencommissie van de Koninkijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Te Amsterdam. Vol. 8, 115.Google Scholar
Wiel, K. 2018. Analyzing Language Attitudes on Facebook: ‘Nos Dushi Papiamento/u’. https://sites.temple.edu/tudsc/2018/09/05/nos-dushi-papiamento/.Google Scholar
Weiland, P. 1805. Nederduitsche spraakkunst. Amsterdam: Johannes Allart.Google Scholar
Weinberger, S. H. 2017. The Speech Accent Archive. George Mason University. http://accent.gmu.edu.Google Scholar
Weinberger, S. H. and Kunath, S. A.. 2011. The Speech Accent Archive: Towards a typology of English accents. In Newman, J., Baayen, H., and Rice, S., eds. Corpus-Based Studies in Language Use, Language Learning, and Language Documentation. Leiden: Brill, 265281.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. 1968. Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., and Herzog, M. I.. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y., eds. Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, 95195.Google Scholar
Wentura, D. and Rothermund, K.. 2014. Priming is not priming is not priming. Social Cognition 32.Supplement: 4767.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F. and Tees, R. C.. 1984. Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development 7.1: 4963.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F., Polka, L., and Pegg, J. E.. 1997. The conditioned head turn procedure as a method for testing infant speech perception. Infant and Child Development 6.3–4: 171178.Google Scholar
Whynot, L. 2016. Understanding International Sign: A Sociolinguistic Study. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Wiesinger, P. 2008. Die sprachlichen Verhältnisse und der Weg zur allgemeinen deutschen Schriftsprache in Österreich im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert. In Wiesinger, P.. Das österreichische Deutsch in Gegenwart und Geschichte. Vienna: LIT, 253304.Google Scholar
Wigboldus, D. H. J., Holland, R. W., and Van Knippenberg, A.. 2004. Single Target Implicit Associations. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Willemyns, R. 1997. Niederländisch – Französisch. In Goebl, H., Nelde, P. H., and Stary, Z., eds. Contact Linguistics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 11231129.Google Scholar
Willemyns, R. 2006. The Low Countries. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. J., and Trudgill, P., eds. Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. 2nd ed., Vol. 3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 17581765.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Garrett, P., and Coupland, N.. 1999. Dialect recognition. In Preston, D. R., ed. Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 345358.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 2020. Using social-media data to investigate morphosyntactic variation and dialect syntax in a lesser-used language: Two case studies from Welsh. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5.1. 103.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. 1983. Second-Hand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. and Dewaele, J.-M.. 2010. The use of web questionnaires in second language acquisition and bilingualism research. Second Language Research 26.1: 103123.Google Scholar
Winter, B. 2019. Statistics for Linguists: An Introduction Using R. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Winter, J. 1992. Discourse as a resource: Methods of collecting language attitudes. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 15.1: 122.Google Scholar
Wojnowicz, M. T., Ferguson, M. J., Dale, R., and Spivey, M. J.. 2009. The self-organization of explicit attitudes. Psychological Science 20.11: 14281435.Google Scholar
Wölck, W. 1973. Attitudes toward Spanish and Quechua in bilingual Peru. In Shuy, R. W. and Fasold, R. W., eds. Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 129147.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 1976. Signs of change: Historical variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 10: 8194.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. A. 1985. Language variation and cultural hegemony: Toward an integration of sociolinguistic and social theory. American Ethnologist 12.4: 738748.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. A. 1989. Double Talk: Bilingualism and the Politics of Ethnicity in Catalonia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. A. 1992. Language ideology: Issues and approaches. Pragmatics 2.3: 235249.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. A. 1998. Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In Schieffelin, B. B., Woolard, K. A., and Kroskrity, P. V., eds. Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 347.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. A. and Gahng, T.-J.. 1990. Changing language policies and attitudes in autonomous Catalonia. Language in Society 19.3: 311330.Google Scholar
Wooten, J. 2017. Performance-based focus groups. In Barbour, R. S. and Morgan, D. L., eds. A New Era in Focus Group Research: Challenges, Innovation and Practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 251276.Google Scholar
[W3Techs]. 2020. WorldWideWeb Technology Surveys. Usage statistics of content languages for websites. https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_language.Google Scholar
Wright, S. 2004. Language Policy and Language Planning: Nationalism and Globalisation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Xie, X., Liu, L., and Jaeger, T. F.. 2021. Cross-talker generalization in the perception of non-native speech: A large-scale replication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 150.11: e22–e56.Google Scholar
Yang, C. 2014. Language attitudes toward Northeastern Mandarin and Putonghua (PTH) by young professionals. Chinese Language and Discourse 5.1: 211230.Google Scholar
Yitzhaki, D. 2010. The discourse of Arabic language policies in Israel: Insights from focus groups. Language Policy 9: 335356.Google Scholar
Yook, C. and Lindemann, S.. 2013. The role of speaker identification in Korean university students’ attitudes towards five varieties of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34.3: 279296.Google Scholar
Young, A. and Temple, B.. 2014. Approaches to Social Research: The Case of Deaf Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yuasa, I. P. 2010. Creaky voice: A new feminine voice quality for young urban-oriented upwardly mobile American women? American Speech 85.3: 315337.Google Scholar
Zahn, C. J. and Hopper, R.. 1985. Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 4.2: 113123.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M. 2015. Searchable talk: The linguistic functions of hashtags. Social Semiotics 25.3: 274291.Google Scholar
Zeshan, U. 2015. ‘Making meaning’: Communication between sign language users without a shared language. Cognitive Linguistics 26.2: 211260.Google Scholar
Zhao, H. and Liu, H.. 2021. (Standard) language ideology and regional Putonghua in Chinese social media: A view from Weibo. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 42.9: 882896.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J., Morato, R., and Snedeker, J.. 2019. Priming semantic structure in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 3.1: 2537.Google Scholar
Zipp, L. 2014a. Indo-Fijian English: Linguistic diaspora or endonormative stabilization? In Hundt, M. and Sharma, D., eds. English in the Indian Diaspora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 187213.Google Scholar
Zipp, L. 2014b. Educated Fiji English: Lexico-Grammar and Variety Status. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Edited by Ruth Kircher, Mercator European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning, and Fryske Akademy, Netherlands, Lena Zipp, Universität Zürich
  • Book: Research Methods in Language Attitudes
  • Online publication: 25 June 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108867788.027
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Edited by Ruth Kircher, Mercator European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning, and Fryske Akademy, Netherlands, Lena Zipp, Universität Zürich
  • Book: Research Methods in Language Attitudes
  • Online publication: 25 June 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108867788.027
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Edited by Ruth Kircher, Mercator European Research Centre on Multilingualism and Language Learning, and Fryske Akademy, Netherlands, Lena Zipp, Universität Zürich
  • Book: Research Methods in Language Attitudes
  • Online publication: 25 June 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108867788.027
Available formats
×